Category: Information

Falconer v Common Services Agency for The Scottish Health Service: SIC 22 Jul 2008

Report produced by NHS Counter Fraud Services – Mr John Falconer (Mr Falconer) requested a copy of a report prepared by NHS Scotland Counter Fraud Services (CFS) into NHS Lothian’s Laboratory Van Service from the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service (the CSA). The CFS is part of the CSA. The CSA refused to provide the report on the basis that it was exempt under section 34 (Investigations by Scottish public authorities and proceedings arising out of such investigations) and section 35 (Law enforcement) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the CSA had been entitled to withhold the report on the basis that its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice substantially its statutory function in relation to the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities within the NHS.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 084 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434184

Shutt v Argyll and Bute Council: SIC 7 Aug 2008

SIC Details of grants paid for common repairs to a block of flats – Mrs Shutt requested details of the total grant and the grant per apartment paid for common repairs to a block of flats from Argyll and Bute Council (the Council). When the Council did not respond to her initial request, Mrs Shutt requested a review. In its response, the Council provided details of the total grant but withheld the grant per apartment under section 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Mrs Shutt remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the information withheld was not exempt from disclosure in terms of section 38(1)(b) of FOISA and required the Council to release details of the grant paid for each apartment to Mrs Shutt.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 093 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434205

Black and Scottish Prison Service: SIC 3 Sep 2008

SIC Mr Black requested from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) details of the costs of transporting bedframes made by prisoners. The SPS responded by stating that to respond to part of Mr Black’s request would exceed the cost threshold and refused to supply other information on the basis that it was exempt under section 33(1)(b) of FOISA. Following a review, Mr Black remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the SPS had dealt with Mr Black’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by correctly applying section 12(1) of FOISA and refusing to comply with the request on the basis of excessive cost.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 106 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434219

Emslie and Scottish Ministers: SIC 2 Jul 2008

Correspondence and other information held by Communities Scotland
Mr David Emslie (Mr Emslie) made two separate sets of information requests seeking a wide range of information from Communities Scotland, which was at that time was an agency of the Scottish Government. These requests are reproduced in Appendix 2 of this decision.
Communities Scotland responded to the first set of requests by stating that it had already supplied much of this information to Mr Emslie and to supply the remainder would exceed the prescribed limit of andpound;600 set out in the Freedom of Information (Fees for Required Disclosure) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the Fees Regulations). Mr Emslie asked Communities Scotland to review its decision.
Following telephone discussions with Mr Emslie, during which Communities Scotland understood Mr Emslie to have narrowed his information request, it carried out a review and, as a result, notified Mr Emslie that all material had already been supplied to Mr Emslie and there was no further releasable material.
In responding to the second set of requests, Communities Scotland also understood discussions with Mr Emslie to have narrowed the scope of his requests. It again stated that all releasable information had been supplied. This response was reiterated following an internal review. However, at this stage, Communities Scotland also claimed that Mr Emslie’s second set of requests were vexatious in terms of section 14(1) of FOISA.
Mr Emslie remained dissatisfied with Communities Scotland’s responses and applied to the Commissioner for a decision. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that Communities
Scotland would have been entitled to refuse to comply with both sets of Mr Emslie’s information requests since they were vexatious in terms of section 14(1) of FOISA.
However, the Commissioner found that Communities Scotland had failed to respond to Mr Emslie’s two requests for review within the 20 working day timescale set out in section 21(1) of FOISA and accordingly had not dealt with the requests in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He did not require Communities Scotland to take any action in relation to these breaches of FOISA.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 074 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434179

David Walker v Falkirk Council: SIC 18 Dec 2009

Council procedures – Mr David Walker asked Falkirk Council (the Council) to supply any recorded information relating to two questions arising from previous correspondence with the Council. The Council initially failed to reply, and Mr Walker asked for a review of this decision. The Council then wrote to advise Mr Walker that information relating to his first request was not held. It provided some information associated with, but not covered by, the terms of his second request. Mr Walker remained dissatisfied and applied for a decision from the Scottish Information Commissioner.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council did not hold any recorded information covered by either of Mr Walker’s requests. The Commissioner found that the Council had not given Mr Walker notice that some of the information requested was not held, and in this respect had failed to comply with section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The Commissioner also found that the Council had failed to comply with the statutory timescale for responding to the request. He did not require the Council to take any action in respect of these failures.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 147 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 17(1)

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434091

Middleton v Dundee City Council: SIC 8 Jan 2008

SIC Request for a copy of the investigation report regarding the failure of a glass pane at the Wellgate Library, Dundee – report withheld under 35(1)(g) (read in conjunction with 35(2)(e) and 35(2)(i)) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 – the Commissioner ordered the Council to disclose the report

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 001 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland)
Act 2002 35

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434104

Hart v Chief Constable of Tayside Police: SIC 22 Dec 2009

Mr Andrew Hart (Mr Hart) requested from the Chief Constable of Tayside Police (Tayside Police) information relating to an alleged incident. Tayside Police refused to confirm whether the information requested existed or was held by them, in terms of section 18 of FOISA. Following a review in which this decision was upheld, Mr Hart remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that Tayside Police had dealt with Mr Hart’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He did not require Tayside Police to take any action.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 149 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information, Police

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434088

R and Orkney Islands Council: SIC 10 Sep 2009

Mr R requested from Orkney Islands Council (the Council) information relating to Equal Opportunities. He also asked for other information relating to him which does not form part of this Decision. The Council initially failed to respond but later responded to a request for review. It also supplied Mr R with its equal opportunity policy together with statistical information which fell within the scope of his request and an explanation of information held. Following the review, Mr R remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council complied with Part 1 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in that it was correct to inform Mr R that it did not hold an Equal Opportunities Charter, in keeping with section 17 of FOISA.
However, the Commissioner also found that the Council failed to comply with Part 1 of FOISA, in particular by failing to provide reasonable advice and assistance to Mr R regarding clarification of the request and in line with its duty under section 15 of FOISA. It also failed to comply with Part 1 of FOISA by not responding within the statutory timescales in terms of section 10(1) of FOISA and by failing to carry out a review in line with sections 21(4) and (5) of FOISA within the timescales laid down by section 21(1) of FOISA. He does not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 107 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434058

Crosbie and Scottish Public Services Ombudsman: SIC 8 Jul 2009

SIC Failure to respond to request and request for review – This decision considers whether the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to an information request and request for review made by Mr Alan Crosbie

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 076 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434024

Croisdain Mackenzie and Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: SIC 2 Apr 2009

SIC Mr Croisdain MacKenzie (Mr MacKenzie) requested from Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Council) a specified Opinion of Senior Counsel and related information. The Council provided some information, but withheld the Opinion and a summary of it in terms of section 36(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), on the basis that these documents were information in respect of which a claim of confidentiality of communications could be maintained in legal proceedings. Following a review, Mr MacKenzie remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr MacKenzie’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He found that the Council had correctly applied the exemption in section 36(1) and that the public interest in disclosing of the information was outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
However, the Commissioner found that the Council had failed to respond to Mr MacKenzie’s request for review within the timescale specified in section 21(1) of FOISA. He did not require the Council to take any action in relation to this breach in response to this decision.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 040 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433993

Longden v Scottish Ministers: SIC 5 Aug 2009

SIC Failure to respond to a request within the required timescale – This decision considers whether the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to information request made by Liz Longden.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 097 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434043

Conor McNally v City Building (Glasgow) Llp: SIC 14 Sep 2009

Mr McNally requested from City Building (Glasgow) LLP (CBG) information relating to improvement works carried out at a specified address. CBG responded by providing some information. However, CBG advised Mr McNally that the remainder of the information he had asked for was either not held by it, or was considered exempt in terms of section 33(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Following a review, Mr McNally remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that CBG had partially failed to deal with Mr McNally’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA by failing to advise him which of the information he had requested it did not hold and by failing to identify all of the information falling within the scope of his request. However, the Commissioner found that CBG had correctly applied the exemption in section 33(1)(b) in relation to the pricing information. The Commissioner did not require CBG to take any action in relation to the breaches identified in this decision.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 110 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434054

X and Scottish Court Service: SIC 12 Jan 2009

Solemn criminal appeals – Mr X requested from the Scottish Court Service (the SCS) information relating to solemn criminal appeals. The SCS responded by confirming that the information requested by Mr X was not held. Following a review, as a result of which the SCS retracted its assertion that the information was not held, Mr X was provided with the information the SCS believed at the time fell within the scope of his request. Mr X remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Commissioner was notified that on further consideration the SCS now took the view that the information provided to Mr X represented only part of the request. However, the SCS also submitted, with supporting calculations, that the cost of full compliance would exceed andpound;600. As a result of the investigation, the Commissioner accepted that the cost of compliance in this case would exceed andpound;600 and consequently that (by virtue of section 12(1) of FOISA) the SCS was not obliged to comply with the request. He also found, however, that the SCS had failed to provide Mr X with adequate advice and assistance in responding to his request.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 002 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433954

Carlin and Renfrewshire Council: SIC 12 Jan 2009

Mr Carlin requested from Renfrewshire Council (the Council) all documents relating to a specified investigation of a Councillor. The Council responded by withholding the information under sections 34(1) and 38 of FOISA. Following a review, in which the Council upheld its decision to withhold the information, Mr Carlin remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr Carlin’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He found that the information was properly withheld under section 34(1)(b) of FOISA, on the basis that it was information which had been held by the Council for the purposes of carrying out a relevant investigation and the public interest lay in withholding this information.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 003 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433952

Angove v Scottish Ministers: SIC 19 Oct 2010

SIC Failure to respond to request and request for review – This decision considers whether the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to the information request made by Mr Angove.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 180 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433904

L and Lothian Health Board: SIC 12 Oct 2010

Statistical information on complications and injuries associated with forceps delivery – Mrs L requested from Lothian Health Board (NHS Lothian) statistical evidence on specific complications and injuries associated with forceps delivery to newborns and mothers at the Simpson Centre for Reproductive Health (SCRH). NHS Lothian responded by explaining that the information requested was not recorded outwith individual medical files, that it could not be disclosed without breaching the data protection principles and that consequently it was exempt under section 38 of FOISA. Additionally, NHS Lothian claimed that to provide the information would involve a level of work which would exceed the andpound;600 limit set for the purposes of section 12(1) of FOISA. Following a review, Mrs L remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that NHS Lothian had dealt with Mrs L’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, as the Commissioner accepted that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the specified cost limit and that NHS Lothian was therefore not obliged to comply with the request.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 178 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433906

Gowans and Falkirk Council: SIC 12 Jan 2009

SIC Mr John R Gowans requested all the information Falkirk Council (the Council) held regarding the death of his son, Craig Gowans. The Council relied upon sections 34(1)(a), 34(1)(b), 34(2)(b) and 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) to withhold all of the requested information. Following a review, in which the Council upheld its previous decision, Mr Gowans remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr Gowans’ request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by withholding the information under section 34(1)(a) of FOISA. He did not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 004 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433951

Quinn v Dumfries and Galloway Council: SIC 30 Mar 2010

SIC Mrs June Quinn requested from Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) information pertaining to a complaint that she had made against a named police officer. The Council withheld the information under a number of exemptions in Part 2 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Following a review, in which the Council additionally relied upon section 38(1)(b) of FOISA to withhold the information, Mrs Quinn remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Council additionally relied upon section 38(1)(a) of FOISA. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mrs Quinn’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by withholding the report under sections 38(1)(a) and 38(1)(b) of FOISA. He did not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 053 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433779

Rowlands v Scottish Water: SIC 21 Jul 2010

SIC Mr Rowlands requested from Scottish Water information relating to correspondence between Scottish Water and others relating to houses at Cairndow, Argyll. Scottish Water responded by supplying information relating to the request. Following a review, as a consequence of which Scottish Water provided further information and confirmed that the request had been dealt with under the EIRs, Mr Rowlands remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following the investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that Scottish Water had provided Mr Rowlands with all the relevant information it held.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 131 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433853

Collie v Common Services Agency for The Scottish Health Service: SIC 26 May 2010

SIC Childhood leukaemia statistics in Dumfries and Galloway – This decision replaces Decision 021/2005 Michael Collie and the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service issued by the Commissioner in August 2005.
In 2005, shortly after the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) came into force, Mr Collie made an information request to the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service (the CSA) for childhood leukaemia statistics for the Dumfries and Galloway area. The CSA refused to disclose the statistics on the basis that the disclosure could lead to the identification of the children involved. The Commissioner agreed that disclosure would lead to identification, and instead required the CSA to disclose the statistics, but in a way which was designed to protect against identification of individuals.
The CSA appealed the Commissioner’s decision to the Court of Session and then to the House of Lords. The House of Lords allowed a number of the CSA’s grounds of appeal, quashed the decision and remitted the case back to the Commissioner for further investigation.
Following further investigation, the Commissioner found that the CSA partially failed to deal with Mr Collie’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. While he agreed that the information which was the subject of Mr Collie’s information request was exempt under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA, on the basis that the statistics in question were sensitive personal data, the disclosure of which would breach the first data protection principle, he also found that the CSA failed to comply fully with the duty under section 1(1) of FOISA by failing to provide the statistical information to Mr Collie in a form which would not lead to the identification of the individuals in question, when such disclosure was possible. The Commissioner has agreed with the CSA the form in which this information should be disclosed.

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 021 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433801

Loch Awe Improvement Association vArgyll District Salmon Fishery Board and Scottish Ministers: SIC 5 Jul 2010

SIC Statutory records kept by a fish farming business – Fish Legal on behalf of Loch Awe Improvement Association and Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (Fish Legal) requested from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) information relating to an escape of farmed fish including statutory records kept by the fish faming business. The Ministers responded by providing much of the information requested but also indicated that they did not hold the information contained in statutory records maintained by the fish farming business. Following a review, Fish Legal remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision, arguing that the records were held by the fish farm on behalf of the Ministers, and so (in terms of regulation 2(2)(b)) were held by the Ministers for the purposes of the EIRs.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that statutory records compiled and retained by the fish farming business were not held on behalf of the Ministers therefore that the Ministers were correct to advise Fish Legal that these records were not held.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 116 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433844

N and South Lanarkshire Council: SIC 14 Jun 2010

Whether request vexatious – Mr N requested from South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) copies of changes to planning legislation and the Council’s guiding policy. The Council responded that it regarded the request as vexatious in terms of section 14(1) of FOISA. Following a review, Mr N remained dissatisfied and
applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr N’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, as it was justified in treating Mr N’s request as vexatious and therefore was not obliged to comply with the request.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 092 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433824