Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 036 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433772

SIC Caithness Blood Bank – Ms Jacques requested information from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) relating to the closure of Caithness Blood Bank. The Ministers responded by releasing some information but relied on an exemption under section 30(b)(i) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) for withholding other information. Following a review, Ms Jacques remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Ministers released additional information but applied a further exemption in terms of section 38(1)(b) of FOISA.
The Commissioner found that the Ministers complied with Part 1 of FOISA by withholding some information which constituted personal data (including sensitive personal data). He also found that certain information was correctly withheld in terms of section 30(b)(i) in that release would (or would be likely to) substantially inhibit the free and frank provision of advice. He did not, however, accept the Ministers’ application of section 30(b)(i) in respect of all the withheld information. He required the Ministers to release further information to Ms Jacques subject to the redaction of certain personal data (some of which was sensitive personal data).

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 124 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433755

The claimant MP and former party leader sought to challenge his suspension from The Labour Party and as to removal of the whip. He now sought additional documents, saying the reply to his Subject Access Request had been incomplete.
Held: The party had disclosed those documents it held.

Judges:

Master Sullivan

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 130 (QB)

Links:

Bailii, Jiudiciary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.658649

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-42416

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.657973

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-42689

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.657986

Information Rights – Environmental Information – Exceptions

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 423 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.643977

The complainant requested access to a closed file. The National Archives (TNA) withheld the information on the basis of the exemptions at sections 37(1)(a) and (b), 27(1), 40(2) and 41(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA was entitled to withhold the information on the basis of the exemption at section 37(1)(a) – communications with or on behalf of the Sovereign. The Commissioner also finds that TNA breached section 10 of FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 37: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50837717

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.643402

The complainant has requested information regarding the sale of Mill House on Wimbledon Common. The Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators (WPCC) refused to provide the information because, although WPCC is a public authority for the purposes of the EIR, the requested information is not environmental. The Commissioner’s decision is that the majority of the information within the scope of the request is not environmental and, therefore, there is no obligation on WPCC to provide this information to the complainant under the EIR. However, the Commissioner has identified a small amount of environmental information. In respect of this information, the Commissioner requires WPCC to either make this information available to the complainant or provide a valid refusal notice setting out its reasons for refusing to do so. 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.
EIR 2(1): Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0792745

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.643530

The complainant has requested information relating to the closed file listed as BS 28/61 held by The National Archives. The Commissioner’s decision is that The National Archives (TNA) has correctly applied section 41(1) – provided in confidence to the withheld information. The Commissioner found that TNA breached section 10. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 41: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50805962

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.635093

Restricted regime at HMP Edinburgh on specified dates : Partially upheld

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 064 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.639590

The complainant has requested communications relating to infected blood and blood products within a specified time period. Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) had not responded to the request at the time of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to comply with its obligations under section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50842721

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.639188

Shareholder agreements: failure to respond within statutory timescales : For applicant

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 062 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.639584

The complainant requested information from South Ribble Borough Council (the Council) relating to a complaint about his business. The Council confirmed it held information within the scope of the request. It provided the complainant with some of that information but refused to provide the remainder, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 40(2). He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50573806

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.555425

The complainant has requested recorded information relating to pre-planning advice given to a developer by Derbyshire Dales District Council. The Council has withheld the requested information in reliance on Regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Derbyshire Dales District Council has correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(f). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
EIR 12(5)(f): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0581990

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.555794

The complainant submitted four requests to the Ministry of Defence seeking information about how it had handled an earlier request, submitted by another individual, which had sought a copy of a presentation made to the Army Justice Board (AJB). In response the MOD provided the complainant with copies of the information falling within the scope of his four requests, albeit with exemptions applied on the basis of section 21 (information reasonably accessible by other means); section 30 (investigations); section 31 (investigations); section 35 (government policy); section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs); section 40 (personal data) and section 42 (legal professional privilege). The complainant disputed the application of the various exemptions and was also dissatisfied with the MOD’s failure to explain which parts of the redacted information had been withheld on the basis of section 36 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to rely on the various exemptions it has cited. The only exceptions to this are as follows, The information redacted from agenda item 2a (indicated as serial 11 on the schedule of information provided to the Commissioner) is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a). The information redacted from agenda item 4 (indicated as serial 20 on the schedule of information provided to the Commissioner) is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 21. The information redacted from slide 40 from the AJB presentation (serial 27 in the MOD’s schedule as provided to the Commissioner); the information redacted from briefing notes on agenda item 1b (serial 7); the information redacted from agenda item 4 (serial 23); and the information redacted from agenda item 6a (serial 26), sub para 3b is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2). The MOD breached section 17(1)(b) by failing to specify which exemption had been applied to each particular redaction. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with the relevant parts of the briefing notes without the redactions identified at serials 7, 11, 20 and 23 in place. Provide the complainant with a copy of the information disclosed to him on 16 and 29 September 2014 but this time annotating the redactions which have been made on the basis of section 36. 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 21: Partly upheld FOI 30: Partly upheld FOI 31: Partly upheld FOI 35: Partly upheld FOI 36: Partly upheld FOI 42: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50567838

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.555509

The complainant submitted a request to the public authority in relation to the amount of money recovered in 2013/14 by the authority in tax liabilities from an offshore disclosure facility covering the Crown Dependencies. The information held was withheld by the public authority in reliance on the exemption at section 31(1)(d) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities, the public authority did not hold an estimate of the yield expected specifically from the Crown Dependency Disclosure Facilities (CDDFs). The public authority was not entitled to rely on the exemption at section 31(1)(d) to withhold the yield received from the CDDFs. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the yield received from the CDDFs up to 31 March 2014 for each of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man (‘the disputed 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 31: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568077

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.555495

The complainant requested information from the National Archives (‘TNA’) concerning the trial in 1963 of Stephen Ward, a central figure in the Profumo affair. TNA provided some information and withheld the remainder under section 40(2). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, TNA agreed to disclose additional information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 40(2) to the information that it has continued to withhold. He does not therefore require it to take any further steps, beyond those already agreed, to ensure compliance with the Act.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50532649

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.555126

The complainant has requested information about a police operation carried out on taxi and private hire drivers from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). To date he has not received a substantive response. The 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 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 FS50583303

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.555462

The complainant requested information from the National Archives (‘TNA’) concerning the trial in 1963 of Stephen Ward, a central figure in the Profumo affair. TNA provided some information but withheld the remainder under section 40(2). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, TNA agreed to disclose additional information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 40(2) to the information that it has continued to withhold. He does not therefore require it to take any further steps, beyond those already agreed, to ensure compliance with the Act.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50530056

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.555125

The complainant has requested information from the Government Legal Department. The Commissioner’s decision is that – in relation to the information withheld – the complainant has requested her own personal data and that the Government Legal Department should have neither confirmed nor denied holding any information by virtue of section 40(5)(a) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50557393

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.555484

The complainant has requested a summary of the financing for the Merseygateway project year by year. He provided the council with figures (in the form of a table) which he had obtained from the council previously and asked the council to complete 2 fields entitled ‘Toll Income’ and ‘Surplus to Council’. The council completed the fields and disclosed the information to the complainant. The complainant however wrote back to the council and said that the disclosed figures did not match with the figures he had obtained from the council previously in response to an earlier request. The council gave a brief response explaining that the difference was made up of the cost of the discount scheme, other project costs and service subsidy. It did not however provide any further information to demonstrate this. The complainant therefore argues that the council has failed to provide him with the information which he asked for. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on an objective reading of the request, the council has complied with the requirements of the Regulations in that it provided the complainant with the information which he had requested. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50581962

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.555805

The complainant requested, on behalf of his client, copies of internal correspondence between 1 February 2014 and 8 April 2014 in relation to a particular summons served by the Vale of Glamorgan Council (‘the Council’) on his client. The Council withheld the information requested under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed some information but maintained reliance on regulation 12(5)(b) in relation to other information held. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the remaining withheld information is the personal data of the complainant’s client and therefore is exempt under regulation 5(3) of the EIR. The Commissioner has not ordered any steps, however, commentary on the implication of his findings in relation to the Council’s obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 is set out in the ‘Other Matters’ section at the end of this notice.
EIR 5(3): Not upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50565791

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.555430

Citations:

[2014] UKICO 2014-22

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.527388

The complainant requested comments made by other residents which he considers resulted in Surrey County Council refusing an amendment to a disabled parking bay zone. The council applied section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 40(2) (personal data of third parties) and refused his request. On review it upheld that decision. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey County Council has correctly applied section 40(2) in this instance. Given this he has not considered the application of section 41 further. The Commissioner has not required the council to take any steps therefore. The Commissioner however has found that the council should consider whether any information should be disclosed under the complainant’s rights under section 7 of The Data Protection Act 1998. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0215 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50421283

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.529774

The complainant requested legal advice in connection with the consideration of a request for an environment screening direction about a particular development and more general information about environmental impact assessments. The Welsh Assembly Government (‘the Welsh Government’) withheld some information under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR, and during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it also sought to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) in relation to this information. In relation to the second part of the request, the Welsh Government did not accept this as a valid request for information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to part of the request. He also considers that the second part of the request is a valid request for information. The Commissioner requires the Welsh Government to comply with regulation 5 of the EIR and either disclose the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with regulation 14.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0445334

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.529779

The complainant requested copies of two audits from Surrey County Council relating to a particular school. The council refused to provide the information on the basis that it was exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly relied on section 40(2), with the exception of a small part of the information that the Commissioner considered should have been disclosed. In relation to that information, the Commissioner finds the council in breach of section 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose some of the information from the second audit report dated January 2011.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50432360

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.529775

The complainant requested statements obtained during the public authority’s investigation of events surrounding his son’s death and other statements obtained in relation to an event which occurred some time before his son’s death. He also requested a copy of a report compiled by an officer of the public authority. The public authority refused citing the exemptions at Section 40(2) (Unfair Disclosure of Personal Data) and Section 30 (Investigations Information). Some information was disclosed outside the scope of the Act as a gesture of goodwill. The complainant was dissatisfied with the extent of this private disclosure and complained to this office arguing that all the requested information should have been disclosed to him under the Act. Focussing on that information which remains withheld from the complainant, the Commissioner has decided that the public authority has correctly applied the exemption at Section 30(1) to the information that it holds. Given that Section 30(1) applies to all the requested information, the Commissioner has not considered the application of any other exemption cited. However, the Commissioner is not satisfied with the public authority’s refusal notice in three respects. Firstly, it did not construe an earlier request of a similar nature as a request under the Act and therefore its response to that earlier request was out of time. Secondly, it failed to confirm or deny whether it held some information caught by the scope of the earlier request which was not specifically referred to in a later request. Thirdly, its explanation of the application of Section 40(2) is confusing and inaccurate. He has therefore decided that the public authority did not comply with all its obligations under Section 1(1)(a), Section 17(1) and Section 17(3). This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50107084

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.532505

The complainant requested information relating to ‘enforcement proceedings’ from Stithians Parish Council, but was not satisfied that the response was compliant with the requirements of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached sections 1, 10 and 17 of the FOIA in that it failed to clearly confirm or deny if it held the requested information, or to give a reason valid under the FOIA for the refusal to disclose some information. It also failed to provide any response to one of the complainant’s requests. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a valid response to each of the complainant’s requests. This response should clearly confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. In relation to any information that is held, this should either be disclosed, or a reason valid under the FOIA should be given as to why this information will not be disclosed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50448530

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.529865

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50440458

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.529763

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 075 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433720

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 056 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433702

UTAA Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT) – judicial review

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 116 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433523

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-43077

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.657988

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-46982

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.657994

The complainant has requested information about a complaint that was made to the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (YDNPA) regarding the siting of a domestic oil tank. The YDNPA initially withheld all the information captured by the request under the exceptions provided by regulation 12(5)(d) – confidentiality of proceedings, and regulation 12(5)(f) – voluntary supply of information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the YDNPA disclosed a significant proportion of the information and explained that some of the remaining information consisted of correspondence between itself and the complainant (i.e. the person making the request and subsequent complaint about the handling of his request). The complainant has confirmed that he is not interested in accessing copies of his own correspondence. The other information which the YDNPA continued to withhold comprises of correspondence between itself and the informant, (i.e. the individual who complained about the siting of the oil tank). The YDNPA continued to withhold this information under the exceptions provided by regulations 12(5)(d) and (f). The Commissioner’s decision is that YDNPA is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(d) to withhold the correspondence between itself and the informant. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
EIR 12(5)(d): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0862469

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.643532

The complainant has requested information about money paid by West Sussex County Council (‘the Council’) to place children into secure care accommodation facilities in Scotland, broken down by care facility. The Council refused the request under section 40(2) of the FOIA, as it considered that the information it held comprised third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA, and she does not require the Council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50833412

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.643529

The complainant has requested information about Park Fields, Parkgate. Cheshire West and Chester Council disclosed some information but withheld other information under the exception for the course of justice – regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire West and Chester Council has correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 12(5)(b): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0811862

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.639137

The complainant has requested a particular file from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MPS to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50837518

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.639175

The complainant requested the figures for complaints received and enforcement action taken in the 2013-14 year with regards to the development/ altering of land referred to as the Service Strip. Nottinghamshire County council (the council) initial advised that it did not hold the information but following its internal review amended its initial response instead relying on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request as it considered to provide the information would take over 2.5 days, exceeding the ‘appropriate limit’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50570143

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.555419

Citations:

[2016] UKFTT 2016 – 0163 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.572812

The complainant has requested from the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) of the Home Office information about passport applications, complaints handling and complaints made about IPS to PHSO (Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office incorrectly applied section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act) to the complainant’s request. The complainant has now received responses to both the request of 14 November 2011 and the clarification of 12 December 2011, due to the intervention of the Commissioner. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50434971

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.529831

The complainant has requested information relating to Kingston Upon Hull City Council’s criteria on the method of selection for filling jobs under the reorganisation, deleting posts and roles, and the method of selection for redundancy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority did not deal with the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the public authority has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to disclose the requested information within the statutory time limit of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any action as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50439989

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.529840

The complainant requested information from Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) related to the conditions of patients and their treatments within a number of requests. The Trust has applied section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests) to those requests. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50451031

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.529855

Dismissal of reliance on claim of legal professional privilege

Citations:

[2009] UKIT EA – 2008 – 0011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.383858

The complainant requested from Hastings Borough Council information in relation to Councillors’ and Planning Officers’ potential membership of Freemasons’ lodges. The Council provided the complainant with a link which contained the Councillors’ record of interest forms and stated that it did not hold the requested information in relation to Planning Officers. The Commissioner’s decision is that, the Council failed to respond to the complainant’s request in relation to the Councillors’ possible affiliation with Freemasons’ lodges; and does not hold information in relation to Council’s Planning Officers’ possible affiliation with Freemasons’ lodges; The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the complainant with a fresh response to the part of the request seeking information related to the Councillors’ possible affiliation with Freemasons’ lodges. This response must set out clearly and accurately whether the Council holds information falling within the scope of that part of the request and, in relation to any relevant information it does hold, either disclose any such information or explain why the FOIA does not require such a disclosure. The Council 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50773402

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.638690

The complainant has requested the information for a council employee from the electoral register. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hastings Borough Council is entitled to rely upon FOIA section 40(2) – personal information, to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50808997

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.638691

The complainant requested from Hastings Borough Council (the Council) information comprising of documents and correspondence between the Council and Natural England regarding England Coastal Path and Ecclesbourne Glen. Following the Commissioner’s involvement, the Council responded to the request. However, the complainant remained unhappy with the overall handling of the request by the Council including the time the Council took to provide a response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. Since the request has now been responded to, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps in relation to this complaint.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0832160

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.638689