Category: Information

Devon County Council (Decision Notice) FS50430733: ICO 17 Sep 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to a pedestrian footbridge. Some information was disclosed but the complainant remained dissatisfied and is of the view that not all information held by the public authority has been disclosed in response to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Devon County Council has disclosed all the information it holds which is described in the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50430733

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.529821

University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Jan 2014

The complainant requested information about an independent inquiry into the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust’s (the Trust) histopathology services, carried out in 2010. The Trust cited section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (vexatious and repeated requests) and refused to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA and is not obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50505848

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.527418

Gillberg v Sweden: ECHR 2 Nov 2010

The applicant, professor in adolescent psychiatry had collected assorted data after having given undertakings to the parents of the children as to its absolute privacy. A sociologist had applied for and been given authority for its release by the Swedish Courts. The applicant had been refused a right tp participate in the court proceedings, and refused access. His colleagues destroyed the data, and he was prosecuted and convicted.
Held: His claims failed.

Judges:

Josep Casadevall, P

Citations:

41723/06, [2010] ECHR 1676

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Helsinki Declaration

Citing:

Cited – Akdivar and Others v Turkey ECHR 16-Sep-1996
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (abuse of process); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 25-1; Violation of P1-1; No . .

Cited by:

3rd Section judgment – Gillberg v Sweden ECHR 3-Apr-2012
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a consultant psychiatrist, had conducted research with children under undertakings of absolute privacy. Several years later a researcher, for proper reasons, obtained court orders for the disclosure of the data under . .
Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Information, Health Professions

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425735

Department of Health and Social Care (Central Government): ICO 19 Jan 2021

The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (‘DHSC’) relating to correspondence between the Health Minister, Lord Bethel, and Portland Communications. By the date of this notice the Council had not provided a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. – Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The DHSC 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: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-71988

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.657971

Rural Payments Agency (Central Government): ICO 18 Jan 2021

The complainant has requested information about a grant awarded to a named rural centre. The Rural Payments Agency (‘RPA’) has refused to disclose the information under regulation 12(3) of the EIR as it considers it to be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The requested information is the personal data, and special category personal data, of third persons and the RPA was entitled to withhold it under regulation 13(1) of the EIR by way of regulation 13(2A)(a) of the Data Protection Act 2018. The Commissioner does not require the RPA to take any remedial steps.
EIR 13: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-43069

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.658013

North Tyneside Council (Local Government): ICO 5 Jan 2021

The complainant has requested a copy of a contract between a company called Kier and its subcontractor. Kier contracted with the council to erect fences in an area, and its subcontractor contracted with Kier to carry out the necessary work. The complainant also requested details on the costs for part of the job. The council provided information on the overall costs of erecting the fences but said that it does not hold a copy of the contract between Kier and its subcontractor. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the council was correct to state that it has disclosed all of the information which it holds falling within the scope of the request to the complainant. The Commissioner does not therefore require the council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-44410

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.658006

Holbrook Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Aug 2012

The complainant has requested information related to correspondence between Holbrook Parish Council and a named firm of solicitors. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, the council has not provided an adequate response to the request in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner therefore reminds the council of its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act and requires that it either respond to the request in accordance with the legislation or issue a valid refusal notice under section 17(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50440985

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.529733

Derby City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Jun 2006

The complainant requested a copy of Counsel’s legal advice, held by the Council in response to a legal case to which the complainant was a significant party. The Council refused the request under section 40 of the Act (personal data), and also under section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner viewed the information and has decided the legal professional privilege exemption applies and that the public interest rests in maintaining the exemption. As a result of this section 40 was not considered further for the purposes of the Decision Notice. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50068826

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.533448

Hull City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Sep 2006

The complainant asked whether the council’s senior legal officer had declared her private business interests as required by the council’s code of conduct. The Council confirmed that the officer had done so at all times. The complainant also asked for documentary proof. The Council withheld several documents on the grounds that they contained personal information, that they had been provided in confidence and that their release was prohibited by statute. The Commissioner decided that the documentation and the information they contained was exempt from disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50073305

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.533559

Hertfordshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Aug 2012

The complainant has requested a range of information relating to commercial training provided by Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service. Hertfordshire County Council provided some of the requested information, confirmed some information was not held and withheld some information because it considered that disclosure would be likely to result in prejudice to its commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly confirmed that information relating to gross profits derived from commercial training is not held. In relation to its decision to withhold details of customers in receipt of training, the Commissioner has decided that the council has wrongly applied the commercial interests exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0203 has been disposed of by way of a consent order.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50444733

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.529732

Commission v Austria C-189/09: ECJ 29 Jul 2010

ECJ (Approximation Of Laws) Failure to fulfill obligations – Directive 2006/24/EC – Protection of Privacy – Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period.

Citations:

[2010] EUECJ C-189/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2006/24/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422128

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 5 Jun 2019

The complainant requested copies of public messages added to Ukgovernmentdigital.slack.com during a specified four hour period. The Cabinet Office initially refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA, then claimed that it did not hold the requested information. The complainant then revised his request, but the Cabinet Office did not respond to the revised request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office ought to have responded to the revised request submitted by the complainant.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50822667

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.638737

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 11 Apr 2019

The complainant requested information in a Vehicle Conversion and Reconditioning Services Framework – RM956 managed by the Crown Commercial Service. The public authority disclosed some of the requested information and withheld data under the fields ‘CustomerName’ and ‘Customer Invoice Date’ on the basis of the exemptions at sections 31(1)(a) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold the data under the field ‘Customer Invoice Date’ but that it was not entitled to withhold the data under the field ‘CustomerNames.’
FOI 31: Complaint upheld FOI 43: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50758833

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.638066

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 12 Apr 2019

The complainant submitted two requests to the Cabinet Office seeking information about the government’s Gulf Strategy. The Cabinet Office responded by stating that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of either request. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the Cabinet Office does not hold any information falling within the scope of either request.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50815942

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.638067

Norfolk and Norwich Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Health): ICO 6 Jan 2021

The complainant requested information from Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) about the job description and person specification for the role of Information Governance Consultant. The Trust had failed to provide a substantive response to this request by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. The Trust 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 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-69754

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.658005

Natural England (Education (Other)): ICO 11 May 2015

The complainant has requested a copy of a complaint received by the Environment Agency about the management and use of a particular site. The Environment Agency considered this was excepted information under the ‘voluntary supply of information’ (regulation 12(5)(f)) and ‘third party personal data’ (regulation 13) exceptions in the EIR. With regard to the application of regulation 12(5)(f), which is qualified by the public interest test, the Environment Agency found that on balance the public interest favoured withholding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(f) is engaged and that in all the circumstances the public interest in favour of maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner has not therefore gone on to consider the application of regulation 13 and does not require the Environment Agency to take any steps as a result of this notice.
EIR 12(5)(f): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0570115

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.555415

Northumberland County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 20 May 2015

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 Northumberland County Council 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 FS50565809

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.555418

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Aug 2012

The complainant requested copies of the responses submitted to the Home Office in response to the government’s consultation in 2011 on ending age discrimination in access to goods and services. The Home Office refused to provide the responses on the basis of section 35(1)(a). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office explained that it now considered the policy in question to be complete and consequently section 35(1)(a) was no longer engaged (albeit it maintained its position that this information was exempt from disclosure at the time of the request). In light of this development the Home Office provided the complainant with the responses he had requested. The Commissioner has concluded that the Home Office breached section 10(1) of FOIA by not providing these responses within 20 working days of the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50441785

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.529734

Health and Safety Executive (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Aug 2012

The complainant has requested various pieces of information relating to the development of an underground gas storage facility. The Health and Safety Executive provided some information, but withheld some information on the basis that its disclosure would adversely affect national security or public safety [regulation 12(5)(a)]. It also applied the exception for the personal information of third parties [regulations 12(3) and 13(2)]. The complainant complained about the use of these exceptions, and also argued that the HSE had not identified all the relevant information that would fall under this request. During the investigation of this case, the complainant provided further details as to the scope of his request. Having been provided with this, the HSE informed the Commissioner that it was now treating the request as manifestly unreasonable [regulation 12(4)(b)]. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE has incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to this request. Therefore the Commissioner requires the HSE to respond to the request in compliance with the requirements of regulation 5(1) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0411868

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.529731

Council for The Curriculum Examinations and Assessment (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Sep 2012

The complainant requested information regarding communications with respect to the summer 2011 GCE mathematics papers and in particular question 4 of the mechanics M2 paper. He also requested a copy of the expert’s report which followed the review of statistics papers in 1998-2002. He explained that he understood that this contains three recommendations which were made following the review, but, if not, he required the document which does contain these recommendations. The Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment refused to deal with this request on the grounds that it was vexatious (section 14). The Commissioner’s decision is CCEA has incorrectly relied on section 14(1) in this particular case. The Information Commissioner requires CCEA to respond to the complainant’s request for information as required by section 1(1) of the FOIA. CCEA must either comply with section 1(1) of the FOIA or issue a valid refusal notice complying with section 17(1) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435465

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.529809

Department for Culture Media and Sport (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Mar 2009

On 31 January 2007 the complainant wrote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to request information in relation to the European Commission’s ongoing investigation of the UK measures notified to the Commission under Article 3a Television with Frontiers Directive. The DCMS refused to disclose this information relying on sections 27(1)(b), 27(1)(d) and 27(2) of the Act (the international relations exemption). The Commissioner has concluded that the information requested by the complainant is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(b) and in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The complainant submitted a further request for the same information on 21 December 2007. The DCMS did not consider this as a request for information under the Act rather as a request to re-open its decision to refuse the first request of 31 January 2007. The Commissioner has concluded that complainant’s letter of 21 December 2007 did constitute a valid request for information under the Act. However, the Commissioner has concluded that in December 2007, as in January 2007, the requested information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 27(1)(b) and the public interest favoured withholding the information. In handling the complainant’s two requests, the Commissioner has also concluded that the DCMS committed a number of procedural breaches of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50170986

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.531963

Ceredigion County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Aug 2012

The complainant requested the computer data and models the Environment Statement was based on in respect of the planning application for the Coastal Defence Scheme at Borth. The Council initially considered the request under the Act refusing to provide the information on the basis of costs. Following the Commissioner’s intervention it subsequently considered the request under the EIR citing regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that Ceredigion County Council has handled the request in accordance with the EIR. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0403936

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.529704

Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Sep 2012

The complainant has requested information regarding legal advice obtained by the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk in relation to a prospective judicial review. The proceedings in question were brought by the Hunstanton Pier Company and related to the council’s decision not to release it from certain obligations as tenant of the pier. The council withheld the information because it considered that disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to conduct a proper internal review of its handling of the request within the time for compliance but that it has correctly applied the course of justice exception to the requested information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50439866

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.529839

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Aug 2012

The complainant made a five part request for financial information about a charity, Bury Metropolitan Arts Association (BMAA), held by Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (the council). The council provided some information but withheld the remainder relying on section 41 and section 43(2) as the information that had been provided in confidence and the remainder would prejudice commercial interests. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council also agreed to provide some further information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 41 and section 43(2) to withhold the remainder of the requested information. Accordingly, he does not require the council to carry out any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435651

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.529697

University of Bradford (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Mar 2009

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the University of Bradford for information held by the University in relation to the use of campus computers to access extremist material in the context of that accessed by four named students together with reports on extremist activity amongst students over the two years prior to the date of the request. The University refused to disclose some of the information it held relevant to the scope of the request as it stated that it was exempt from disclosure under section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner considers that the University correctly applied the section 40(2) exemption by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i) in this case. The Commissioner considers that the University complied with section 1(1)(a) and (b) of the Act as it confirmed what information it held and provided the information that was not exempt to the complainant prior to internal review. However as the University did not confirm what information it held which was exempt from disclosure within 20 working days of the request the Commissioner considers that the University breached section 10(1) of the Act. The Commissioner also considers that the University breached section 17(1)(b) and (c) as it did not accurately state which exemption applied nor did it explain why the exemption applied in this case within the statutory time for compliance.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50197666

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.532002

Volker Und Markus Schecke v Land Hessen (Approximation Of Laws): ECJ 17 Jun 2010

ECJ (Opinion) Protection of individuals regarding the treatment of personal data – Publication of information on beneficiaries of funds deriving from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for rural development – Validity of the legal provisions that provide for such publication and the manner in which it is to be made.

Judges:

Sharpston AG

Citations:

C-93/09, [2010] EUECJ C-93/09

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Opinion – Volker Und Markus Schecke v Land Hessen (Approximation Of Laws) ECJ 9-Nov-2010
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data – Publication of information on beneficiaries of agricultural aid – Validity of the provisions of European Union . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Information

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420203

Nottinghamshire County Council (Local Government): ICO 15 Jan 2021

The complainant requested from Nottinghamshire County Council (‘the Council’) information relating to the closure of a footpath at South Nottinghamshire Academy. The Council withheld some of the information under section 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA and partly disclosed information, but redacted some of it under sections 40 (personal data) and 41 (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied sections 42 and 41 to the withheld information. She has therefore not gone on to consider the application of section 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
FOI 42: Complaint not upheld FOI 41: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-45168

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.658007

Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (Health (NHS)): ICO 23 Jan 2017

The complainant has requested correspondence relating to a particular clinic run by the Trust, sent, or received by the office of two named doctors. The Trust provided some of the requested information but refused to provide the remainder under the exemptions provided by section 36(2) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs, section 40(2) – personal data and section 41 – information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36 can only be relied on in respect of some of the information to which it has been applied, similarly sections 41 and 40(2) can only be relied on in respect of some of the information to which they have been applied. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information which is not protected by any of the exemptions cited as identified in the confidential annex which has been provided to the Trust.
FOI 36: Partly upheld FOI 40: Partly upheld FOI 41: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50616004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.579824

HM Treasury (Central Government): ICO 30 Nov 2015

The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for emails relating to the government’s handling of tax evasion and avoidance allegations made against HSBC Suisse. The public authority withheld the information held in reliance on the exemptions at sections 36(2)(b)(ii), 40(2) and 41(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information referred to as ‘the disputed information’ in the body of this notice in reliance on the exemption at section 36(2)(b)(ii). No steps are required.
FOI 36: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50586317

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.559020

RJ Soutar v Dundee City Council: SIC 1 Jul 2014

Aggregation of requests/environmental information – On 9 September 2013, Mr Soutar asked Dundee City Council (the Council) for information on several topics, which he grouped into six sets of questions. The Council refused to respond, on the basis that it would cost in excess of the andpound;600 cost limit to do so.
The Commissioner found that the Council was wrong to aggregate all of Mr Soutar’s requests for the purposes of applying the cost limit, and also that is should have identified some of Mr Soutar’s requests as seeking environmental information. She found that the Council should have provided advice and assistance to help Mr Soutar narrow his requests, and required the Council to issue further (compliant) responses to Mr Soutar.

Citations:

[2014] ScotIC 143 – 2014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.535099

Monmouthshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information about conifer trees sited on a particular piece of land. Monmouthshire County Council stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0445919

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.529754

Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Nov 2011

The complainant has requested information obtained by the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints (the Ombudsman) relating to two complaints he submitted to him. The Ombudsman withheld this information under section 44 of the Act and regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ombudsman has correctly refused the request under the Act insofar as it relates to non-environmental information. With regard to the information exempt under regulation 12(5)(d) the Commissioner finds that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. However the Commissioner finds that a small portion of information is not exempt as it relates to emissions. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the withheld information relating to emissions.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.d – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0348827

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.531043

Monmouthshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Aug 2012

The complainant requested a copy of information from Monmouthshire County Council it had received from [named specialist computer company] which confirms that the contents of a disputed hard drive definitely did not record any data on 16 November 2010. The Council informed the complainant that it did not hold information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Monmouthshire County Council has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50450970

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.529755

Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jul 2012

ICO The complainant requested from Whittington Hospital NHS Trust a copy of the full documentation for the assessment of eligibility for the Blue Badge Scheme which provides parking concessions for disabled people. The Trust provided some information but withheld the detailed scoring criteria for the assessment under section 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 31(1)(a) to the withheld information and he does not require it to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50434032

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.529684

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Sep 2006

The complainant requested information relating to evidence that he submitted to the CPS in connection with an alleged criminal offence. The CPS deemed the request as vexatious having had correspondence with the complainant for a number of years. Having investigated this case, the Commissioner is satisfied that the application of section 14 by the public authority was correct.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50130467

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.533544

Slough Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Oct 2012

The complainant The complainant has requested the Particulars of Claim relating to a court case involving Slough Borough Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Court records exemption at section 32 of FOIA has been correctly applied to the request. The Commissioner does not require any action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 32 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435211

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.529950

NHS Information Centre (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Aug 2012

The complainant requested statistical information from the NHS IC relating to obesity surgery and drug use in expectant mothers. The NHS IC refused to disclose this information, citing section 21 of FOIA (information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means). The Commissioner’s decision is that the NHS IC has incorrectly applied section 21 to the requested information as he has decided that the NHS IC does not hold the requested information. Therefore the Commissioner orders no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0175 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50420295

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.529757

Department for International Development (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information in relation to a meeting between the British High Commissioner to India and senior officials of the Indian state of Orissa. The public authority withheld most of the information on the basis of sections 27(1) (a), (c), (d), 27(2) and 43(2) of FOIA. It withheld the remainder on the basis of the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(a) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner found that the public authority was entitled to withhold all of the information within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 27(1) (a), (c), (d) and regulation 12(5)(a). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.a – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50436757

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.529716

Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust (Health): ICO 11 Jan 2021

The complainant requested information from Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) relating to the Trust’s expenditure on automation and new technologies in pathology services since the Carter Report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. No steps are required.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-68505

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.658011

Surrey Heath Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 12 Jan 2021

The complainant requested information from Surrey Heath Borough Council (the Council), namely an unredacted copy of the investigation report into the payment of an additional duties allowance to the then Chief Executive. The Council refused to provide the requested report, citing sections 40 (personal information), 41 (information provided in confidence) and 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner considered the Council’s application of section 41 to the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 41 to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 41: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-42086

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.658018

Canterbury City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 21 Nov 2017

The complainant has requested copies of the responses of two individuals he had made a complaint about. Canterbury City Council (the council) refused the request under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) of the FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50690561

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.602377

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)) FS50592450: ICO 30 Nov 2015

The complainant has requested information concerning the legal status of Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’). The Council has refused to comply with the request which it says is vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the Council is not obliged to comply with it. He does not require the Council to take any steps.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50592450

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.559024

HM Revenue and Customs (Central Government): ICO 30 Nov 2015

The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to the Department for Works and Pensions’ referral of a number of its off payroll contractors to the public authority for investigation following their failure to provide income tax assurances. The public authority disclosed some information relevant to the request. It however withheld some figures within the scope of the request in reliance on the exemptions at sections 31(1)(d) and 44(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) to withhold the information described as ‘the disputed information’ in this notice. No steps are required.
FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50579642

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.559019

London Councils (Education (Other)): ICO 14 May 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA). London Councils (LC) disclosed some information but refused to disclose other information under sections 40 and 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that LC has correctly applied sections 40 and 41 of the FOIA to all remaining withheld information. He therefore requires no further action to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld FOI 41: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50564182

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.555410

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)) FS50584468: ICO 30 Nov 2015

In a request running to 13 pages, the complainant requested information that he considers would confirm the legal status of Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has released to the complainant all the related information that it holds and has met its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Council has, however, breached section 10(1) because it did not provide a response within 20 working days. The Council has responded to the request and the Commissioner does not require it to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50584468

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.559023

Garforth Community College (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Nov 2006

ICO The complainant requested information relating to bullying complaints at the College and also information about 3 teachers at the College. The College stated that it did not hold information relating to bullying complaints and refused to provide information requested about 3 teachers on the grounds that disclosure would contravene the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA98). The Commissioner has decided that the College did, in fact, hold bullying complaints information. In failing to explain this to the complainant, the College contravened the requirements of Section 1(1) of the FOI Act. However, the Commissioner has found that location, retrieval and extraction of this information in order to provide it under the FOI Act would exceed the appropriate limit of andpound;450. This limit would be exceeded where it would take the College more than 18 hours work to locate, retrieve and extract the requested information at the specified calculation rate of Aandpound;25/hour. The Commissioner has also decided that the College should have cited the specific exemption it sought to rely on (Section 40(3)(a)(ii) Disclosure would contravene DPA98 Section 10) when refusing to provide information about 3 teachers. In failing to specify the exemption it sought to rely on, the College contravened the requirements of Section 17(1)(b) of the FOI Act. In addition, the specific exemption it sought to rely on is qualified by a public interest test. The Commissioner has also decided that the College should have explained why it considered that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the requested information. In failing to explain its position with regard to the balance of public interest the College contravened the requirements of Section 17(3) of the FOI Act. In any event, in the Commissioner’s view, the information relating to the 3 teachers is exempt from disclosure under a different exemption (Section 40(3)(a)(i) ‘Disclosure would contravene a DPA98 data protection principle). This exemption is not qualified by a public interest test.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50088779

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.533601

Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v O’Brien and Information Commissioner: QBD 10 Feb 2009

The court considered a claim for legal professional privilege by the Department.
Held: The Tribunal had properly directed itself that there was a strong public interest in non-disclosure inbuilt into legal professional privilege but: ‘In the light of the consistent line taken by the Tribunal as to the weight to be attached to the public interest against disclosure inbuilt into legal professional privilege (an approach I have found to be the correct one) it was incumbent upon the Tribunal in the instant case to give significant weight to that interest. Further, the Tribunal was obliged to consider whether the weight to be given to the public interest considerations militating against disclosure were countered by considerations of at least an equal weight which supported an order for disclosure.’
The Tribunal had failed to attach appropriate weight to the exemption and said: ‘The inbuilt public interest in withholding information to which legal professional privilege applies is acknowledged to command significant weight. Accordingly, the proper approach for the Tribunal was to acknowledge and give significant weight to be afforded to the exemption in any event; ascertain whether there were particular or further factors in the instant case which pointed to non-disclosure and then consider whether the feature supporting disclosure (including the underlying public interests which favour disclosure) would have equal weight at the very least.’

Judges:

Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 164 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – HM Treasury v The Information Commissioner Admn 21-Jul-2009
Disclosure of Government’s Legal Advice
The interested party sought to obtain the legal opinion on which the Prime Minister had based his assertion that the Financial Services and Markets Bill complied with Human Rights. The respondent refused claiming protection under the section, and . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and Another Admn 2-Oct-2009
Disclosure was sought of a report prepared by the BBC to assess the balance of its coverage of middle east affairs. The BBC said that the information was not held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature. One issue was whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Legal Professions

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.314297