The complainant has requested information from GeoPlace LLP (‘GeoPlace’) regarding whether a street or alley is adopted. GeoPlace has explained that it is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR or the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘FOIA’). It has therefore refused to respond to this request under either piece of legislation. It has also argued that the request is not a request for environmental information. Following the decision in the case Fish Legal v Information Commissioner and Others (GIA/0979/2011 and GIA/0980/2011) (‘Fish Legal’), GeoPlace repeated its position that it does not consider it is a public authority. However it decided it would voluntarily comply with both the EIR and the FOIA as a matter of policy. It has therefore now provided a response to the complainant. The complainant is not satisfied with this response and has argued GeoPlace has an obligation to provide full access to the information required under the FOIA or the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that this request is for environmental information but that GeoPlace is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. He therefore considers that GeoPlace is not obliged to respond to this request under the EIR and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
EIR 2(2)(c): Not upheld EIR 2(2)(d): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0557711

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555483

The complainant has made a request to Berwick Town Council (‘the council’) for bank statements. The council refused the request citing section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 21 has been correctly engaged. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 21: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50571547

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555439

The complainant requested details of substantiated officer complaints from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). Having initially relied on section 12(1)(cost limit) and 40(2)(personal information) of the FOIA to forego disclosure, the MPS changed its position during the Commissioner’s investigation and provided the requested information other than officers’ names, which it continued to withhold under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is engaged. No steps are required.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50570424

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555459

The complainant requested information about conspiracy to cheat public revenue. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service is correct to state that it does not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Crown Prosecution Service to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50555085

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555464

The complainant has requested information about roadside stops; to date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. He requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA. The MPS must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50582630

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555461

The complainant requested information about academies/free schools who have changed sponsors or moved from one academy chain to another. The DfE provided some information but withheld details of the costs involved under sections 36(2)(c) and 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied section 36(2)(c) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 36: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50569987

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555467

The complainant has requested information relating to a contract between Haringey Council (the council) and ‘Fusion’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has incorrectly applied sections 40(2), 43(1) and 43(2) to some parts of the withheld information. It correctly applied section 40(2), section 41 and section 43(2) FOIA to some parts of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information identified in the confidential annex which was incorrectly withheld under section 40(2), 43(1) and 43(2) FOIA. Redact the information which the Commissioner has found was correctly withheld under section 40(2) FOIA from the information which is to be disclosed. Disclose the remaining schedules which the public authority has indicated it is content to disclose as outlined in paragraph 10 of this notice. Disclose those parts of the ‘Electronic bible’ identified in paragraph 13 of this notice to which no exemptions have been applied. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 40: Partly upheld FOI 43: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50546714

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555489

The complainant has requested from Worcestershire County Council (‘the Council’) information about meeting minutes. He has also asked the Council a number of supplementary questions. The Council says it does not hold the information that the complainant requested. It answered his supplementary questions. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information and has met its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA. He considers that the complainant’s supplementary questions are not held, recorded information and are therefore not valid requests under the FOIA. He has consequently not considered the Council’s response to these. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0118 dismissed.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50572185

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555434

The complainant requested information concerning expenses incurred by Hampshire Constabulary (the police) arising from a set of criminal and other connected proceedings. The criminal matter had included investigation of a private property in the course of which the police had collaborated with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) regarding alleged offences against endangered species of birds. The Commissioner found, from the context and history of the request, and the burden already placed on the police by previous connected information requests, that the request had been correctly characterised as vexatious. He decided that the police force had complied with FOIA and does not require it to take any action.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50574418

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555488

The complainant has requested information regarding emails at a Job Centre. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) relied on section 12 of the FOIA not to meet the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to refuse the request under section 12. However, it has breached section 16 of the Act by not providing assistance on how the complainant could reduce the scope of his request so that it comes within the appropriate limit. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with reasonable assistance on how to limit the scope of his request so that it can be complied with within the appropriate limit. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50567572

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555471

The complainant has requested information from the Blue Coat School about an aspect of its admissions process and has complained to the Information Commissioner because the Blue Coat School has not provided a response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Blue Coat School has breached section 10 of the FOIA because it has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50578947

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555441

The complainant has requested information about facial recognition from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). This was initially refused on the grounds of costs and refined by the complainant on two further occasions at the MPS’s suggestion. To date she is yet to receive a substantive response. The Commissioner requires the MPS to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA. The MPS must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50581460

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555460

The complainant made a request to Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) for information regarding the purchase of land for a guided busway. TfGM refused the request under the section 40(2) (Personal information) and section 43(2) (Commercial interests) exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is engaged but that section 43(2) is not. The Commissioner requires TfGM to disclose to the complainant the information falling within the scope of request 2 – the price paid for plots purchased on the route of the guided busway. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this Decision Notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court (or the Court of Session in Scotland) pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0122 dismissed.
FOI 40: Not upheld FOI 43: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568760

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555428

The complainant has requested information contained in a report of an investigation conducted by the HR department and which relates to the care of his late mother. The Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) provided some information outside the scope of FOIA, but withheld the remainder under section 40(2) – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50558413

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555241

The complainant has requested information relating to his late mother while a resident in a sheltered housing complex. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Tyneside Council correctly applied the exemption for information provided in confidence at section 41 of the FOIA. He has also decided that, on the balance of probabilities, North Tyneside Council does not hold any further information. He does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 41: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50558353

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555233

The complainant has requested copies of datasets that provide information on the road adoption status of the highways and other related information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets was correct to refuse to provide the information under Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR as the information is already publicly available and easily accessible to the complainant in another form or format. He does not require any steps to be taken to comply with the legislation.
EIR 6: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0572743

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555427

The complainant has requested information in several parts in relation to a named councillor, dates of deaths of residents at a care home and information on legionnaires. Hampshire County Council (the council) provided information to parts 4 to 6b of the request, advised that it did not hold information for parts 7 and 8 and refused to provide the information for parts 1 to 3 of the request, relying on section 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided the information it holds for parts 4 to 6b of the request, does not hold the information requested in parts 7 and 8, and has correctly relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information requested for parts 1 to 3 of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50553682

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555200

ICO Central government
The complainant requested the test data and test methodology used in determining broadband speeds of properties able to access fast fibre broadband as a result of the Superfast Cymru scheme. The Welsh Government withheld the information under section 22 of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Welsh Government confirmed that some of the information had been published, namely the test methodology. In relation to the test data the Welsh Government withdrew reliance on section 22 but stated that it considered it to be exempt under sections 41, 43 and 44 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government correctly applied section 41 to the information. He does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 41: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50542615

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555154

The complainant has requested access to a closed file in the catalogue of the National Archives and to date he has not received a response. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. He requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Information Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50567019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555128

The complainant has requested information relating to the transfer of secure tenancy agreement records. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bath and North East Somerset Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by falling to respond to respond to the request within the statutory time limit of 20 working days. He does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50576929

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555367

The complainant has requested information from Northumberland County Council (‘the council’) about the recording of formal complaints. The council responded outside the time for compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50569121

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555234

The complainant requested information about communications between 3 UHMB directors and Monitor and the Care Quality Commission in 2010. The University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust (UHMB) stated that to carry out an electronic search would breach the cost limits set by section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’). The Commissioner’s decision is that UHMB incorrectly applied section 12(1) and found a breach of sections 10(1) and 16(1). The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the complainant that does not rely on section 12 as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 12: Upheld FOI 16: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566297

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555429

The complainant requested access to information which had been withheld from a murder file under section 40(2) – personal data. He provided evidence that some of the people he believed this information related to were now no longer living. The Commissioner’s decision is that The National Archives (TNA) correctly disclosed information in light of the evidence provided by the complainant. However the Commissioner finds that there is additional information that should be released. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information identified in the confidential annex to this notice which has been provided exclusively to TNA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
FOI 40: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50537628

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555127

The complainant has requested information about ’03’ telephone number revenue sharing. Ofcom released some information and applied the FOIA exemptions under section 40 (personal data), 42 (legal professional privilege) and 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) to the information that it withheld. The complainant chose not to include in their complaint Ofcom’s reliance on section 40 and 42 to aspects of the information that it withheld. The focus of this decision notice is therefore Ofcom’s application of section 44 to particular elements of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofcom has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) and he does not require Ofcom to take any further steps.
FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50559898

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555135

In a ten part request, the complainant has requested information from City of York Council (‘the Council’) about its management of requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act. The Council refused to comply with the request as to do so would exceed the cost limit provided under section 12 of the FOIA. It said that if the complainant was to clarify one part and refine another part, it would be able to respond to the request in its entirety within the cost and time limit. The complainant subsequently clarified these two parts; effectively submitting a new, refined request. The Council has not responded to this revised request. With regard to the refined request, the Commissioner’s decision is that City of York Council has breached 10 of the FOIA (time for compliance) and he requires it to comply with the refined request made on 30 October 2014 or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568899

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555387

The complainant requested a file catalogued at the National Archives with the reference CAB/164/1508 but which is still retained by the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office cited section 22 (information intended for future publication), section 37 (communications with the Royal Family), section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data) and section 41 (information provided in confidence) as its basis for refusal. It upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on the exemptions it has cited as its basis for refusing to provide the information contained in file CAB/164/1508. No steps are required.
FOI 22: Not upheld FOI 37: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld FOI 41: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50554686

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.555167

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Financial Ombudsman Service (‘the FOS’) for information related to its current procedures on various matters. The FOS refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA on the grounds that it was vexatious. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and found that the FOS was correct to refuse the request as vexatious under section 14(1) and so requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50497523

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.528982

The complainant has requested information relating to the charity known as Common Purpose. The University provided the complainant with information in response to the request however it made redactions under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly applied section 40(2) to make the redactions to most of the information provided. However the Commissioner does not consider that the University was correct to apply section 40(2) to the substance of a student quote. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the redacted student quote, however the name of the student who provided the quote, should not be disclosed. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0183 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50438587

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.529770

The complainant asked the Information Commissioner to provide information with respect to four questions he had submitted. These questions related to entries in the Data Protection Public Register maintained by the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ‘ICO’) and concerned previous complaints he had made to the Commissioner under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Information Commissioner provided information in relation to the first two of the questions but considered that the other two were enquiries regarding a closed DPA case, to be dealt with in the normal course of business. They were therefore referred to the relevant DPA case officer. When the complainant submitted his request for an internal review, he clarified these last two questions and they have now been treated by the Commissioner as new requests for information. In failing to inform the complainant at the time of the request that he did not hold recorded information concerning the last two questions, the Commissioner finds some procedural breaches of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0088 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50320645

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.530344

The complainant requested information relating to the release of information by West Yorkshire Police in relation to a letter written by a convicted burglar to his victim(s). West Yorkshire Police confirmed it holds information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it citing the personal information exemption of FOIA (section 40(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Police has correctly applied section 40(2) to the majority of the withheld information. However, he finds that in the circumstances of this case some of the information should be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information relevant to point 3 of the request – namely the full list of items which were stolen during the burglary.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50436404

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.529782

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50453353

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.529794

The complainant requested information relating to the dog pound operated by Carrickfergus Borough Council. The Council responded to the request, but failed to respond within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to comply with section 10(1) and section 17(1) of the FOIA, but as the Council has now responded the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50450626

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.529806

A monetary penalty of pounds 175,000 was issued to Torbay Care Trust after sensitive personal information relating to 1,373 employees was published on the Trust’s website.

Citations:

[2012] UKICO 2012-11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.529776

The complainant has asked Royal Mail Group Ltd (Royal Mail) to confirm the number of applications it has received which were made under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) or the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 (RIPSA). This information was requested on a year-by-year basis for the period 2007 to 2011. The Commissioner’s decision is that Royal Mail incorrectly claimed that any information held was exempt information under section 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime) of FOIA. In light of his finding, the Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information covered by the scope of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50443877

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.529769

The complainant requested correspondence relating to a planning application in Rotherfield. The council initially refused the request on the grounds that section 41 of the FOI Act applied. However in its review it decided that the exemption was applied incorrectly and disclosed all of the information which it said it held to the complainant. The complainant however believes that further information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wealden District Council supplied the majority of the information after the internal review. It did however fail to provide one document. The Commissioner notes the council’s argument that this referred to a previous planning application and so was not caught within the scope of the request. As it has agreed to disclose a copy of this to the complainant however the Commissioner has not considered this further. The Commissioner notes that the council initially dealt with the request under both FOI and the Regulations, however the information was environmental information and should have been considered for disclosure entirely under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Given that the information was subsequently disclosed however the Commissioner’s decision is that no further action is required by the council in this respect. The Commissioner has decided however that as the council did not disclose the information until after it had carried out its review the council failed to provide the information within 20 working days as required by Regulation 5(2). The Commissioner has also decided that the council breached Regulation 11(4) in that its review of its initial decision was not provided to the complainant within 40 working days of receiving the request to review its initial decision.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0436340

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.529778

The complainant has requested information about Hagley Partners and Communities Together. The public authority refused the request on the grounds that it was vexatious. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached the FOIA in providing a late response but that it was correct to find it vexatious. He does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50440984

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.529781

The complainant has requested any communications between the University of East Anglia (UEA) and Norfolk Police that resulted in Norfolk Police being given the names of people who made FOI requests to the university. UEA said that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that UEA correctly said that the requested information was not held under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50437037

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.529777

The complainant requested information relating to the arrest of several individuals in connection with the attempted murder of Lieutenant General Kuldeep Singh Brar. The public authority’s position is to neither confirm nor deny holding any information by virtue of the exemptions at sections 23(5), 24(2), 27(4), 31(3) and 40(5) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny if holding information within the scope of the request by virtue of the exemptions at sections 23(5) and 24(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50503731

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.528985

The complainant has requested information relating to Common Purpose and for specific invoices. Sheffield Hallam University (the University) provided the complainant with some of the requested information but made redactions under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). It refused to provide some of the requested information under section 12 FOIA as it said it would exceed the cost limit to do so. The redactions made under section 40(2) are being considered in a separate decision notice under case reference FS50438587. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 12 in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50439809

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.529771

The complainant has requested details of any compensation payments resulting from defamatory comments made by the Mayor of Middlesbrough about an employee of Middlesbrough Council (the Council). The Council refused to confirm or deny if it held this information and cited the exemption from the duty to confirm or deny provided by section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has applied the exemption provided by section 40(5) correctly and so it is not required to confirm or deny whether this information is held.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50447032

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.529845

The complainant has requested all documents held by Kent County Council in consequence of the complaints he made regarding the defrosted weight of frozen fish fillets. The council cited section 237 of the Enterprise Act 2002 as a statutory bar on disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied the exemption at section 44 of the FOIA and does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50486851

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.528480

The complainant has requested a copy of a report by Sir Peter North into concerns surrounding the admission to the University of Oxford (the University) as a D Phil student of Mr Mehdi Hashemi, son of former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The University withheld Sir Peter North’s main report and his supplemental report in their entirety under Sections 41 and 36(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act) and applied Sections 40(2) and 38 to parts of the reports. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly applied Section 41 (information provided in confidence) to the requested information and that following a revised disclosure to the complainant by the University of Sir Peter North’s key findings and the report’s outcomes, no further action is required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50458947

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.528521

ICO The complainant requested information about individuals employed by the Financial Ombudsman Service. The Financial Ombudsman Service withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Financial Ombudsman Service has correctly applied this exemption and does not need to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50527542

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.527690

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT EA – 2010 – 0167 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434826

Freedom of Information Act 2000 – personal data: section 40(2) – Data Protection Act 1998: Schedule 1, Part 1, Schedule 2, paragraph 6(1)

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT EA – 2010 – 0130 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434825

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 065 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434789

FTTGRC FOIA S.3 whether information is held by a public authority.

Judges:

Christopher Hughes OBE TJ

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT EA – 2010 – 0152 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434834

Request for a copy of the North Berwick Harbour waiting list

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 024 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434742