Category: Information

Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Apr 2012

ICO The complainant requested the agendas and minutes of meetings of the meetings of the strategic leadership team. The complainant has not received a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (‘the Council’) failed to respond to the request and therefore breached its obligations under section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide a substantive response to the complainant either disclosing the information or issuing a valid refusal compliant with section 17 of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50429082

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.529428

Civil Aviation Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Oct 2005

ICO The complainant holds a private pilot’s licence. The CAA was informed by a third party (the informant) that the complainant was ill and therefore expressed concern about his fitness to fly. The complainant requested copies of all the relevant correspondence held by the CAA and specifically asked for the name and address of the informant. The CAA refused to disclose the information citing the exemption relating to personal information provided by section 40. The Commissioner decided that personal data relating to the informant was covered by the section 40(1) exemption and could not be disclosed without breaching the First Data Protection Principle.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50065361

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.533266

BBC (Decision Notice) FS50272469: ICO 16 Nov 2009

The complainant requested information regarding the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (the BBC’s) decision to dismiss Carol Thatcher from The One Show. The BBC initially withheld some of the requested information, citing section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act) as it was claimed that the request exceeded the fees limit. However, the BBC subsequently relied on the derogation. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information in question is held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. Therefore the BBC was not required to comply with Parts I to V of the Act in relation to this request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50272469

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.532297

Department for International Development (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Mar 2011

The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) which asked for 50 specific documents which he identified by both their title and reference number on DFID’s electronic document records management system. DFID withheld 40 documents in their entirety; disclosed 8 documents in a redacted format and explained that the remaining 2 documents were in fact duplicates of other documents. DFID relied on the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a) to (d); 35(1)(a); 38(1)(a) and (b); 40(2) and 43(2) of the Act to withhold the information not provided to the complainant. The Commissioner has reviewed the information that has been withheld and is satisfied that sections 27(1)(a) to (d) and section 40(2) provide a basis to withhold this information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50312175

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.530310

BBC (Decision Notice) FS50272980: ICO 23 Nov 2009

The complainant made information requests to the British Broadcasting Corporation for information about the number of FOI requests that it receives; certain outcomes from those requests; and the number of FOI requests its journalists or media reporters had sent to local authorities in Wales over a period of time. Although the BBC disclosed the information relating to the number of FOI requests that it receives and the requested outcomes it did not provide the requested information concerning the number of requests its journalists or media reporters had sent to local authorities as it was deemed to be outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act because it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information in question was held for the purpose of journalism, art and literature. Therefore the BBC was not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50272980

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.532298

Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Oct 2011

The complainant has requested a copy of the full set of care records for his deceased daughter. Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) provided the complainant with a full set of care records under the Access to Health Care Records Act 1990 (AHRA). The complainant does not consider that he has been provided with the full set of care records. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 21(1) would be applicable in this case as the requested information is reasonably accessible outside of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) to the complainant. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50406743

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.530940

BBC (Decision Notice) FS50236393: ICO 5 Nov 2009

The complainant requested how many complaints had been made to the British Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC) regarding the decision to axe British dance band recordings from ‘Sunday Night at Ten’. The BBC refused to provide the requested information arguing that journalistic judgement would be compromised by audience feedback being available and that this information fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the Act’) because it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information in question was held for the purpose of journalism, art and literature. Therefore the BBC was not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50236393

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.532283

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 12 Mar 2019

The complainant submitted three requests to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) about the procurement of a particular contract. The MOD disclosed some information falling within the scope of the request but sought to withhold further information on the basis of sections 21 (information reasonably accessible to the requester), 40 (personal data), 41 (information provided in confidence), 44(1)(b) (statutory prohibition), 26(1)(b) (defence), 38 (health and safety) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the information which the MOD is seeking to withhold is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 26(1)(b), 43(2) and 40(2) of FOIA.
FOI 43: Complaint not upheld FOI 26: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50797778

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.635089

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 11 Jun 2019

The complainant submitted three requests to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about Reaper, an unmanned aerial vehicle. The MOD provided some information in response to request 1 but sought to withhold the remaining information in the scope of this request on the basis of section 26(1)(b) (defence) of FOIA. It applied the same exemption to withhold the information falling within the scope of request 2, and also argued that section 27(1)(a) (international relations) of FOIA applied to that information. In respect of request 3, the MOD provided the complainant with some of the information in scope but explained that it did not hold any further information, or alternatively that to locate any potentially relevant information would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that in respect of request 1 the information being withheld is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(b) of FOIA and whilst this exemption does not provide a basis to withhold the information in the scope of request 2, that information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a) of FOIA. In respect of both exemptions, the Commissioner is satisfied that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the information in question. In respect of request 3, the Commissioner has concluded that the MOD holds some information falling within the scope of the request but that to provide this information would exceed the appropriate cost limit and therefore section 12(1) applies to this request.
FOI 26: Complaint not upheld FOI 27: Complaint not upheld FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50789461

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.639179

Walberswick Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Jan 2013

The complainant requested information from Walberswick Parish Council (the council) relating to correspondence about a meeting that had taken place in October 2011. The council refused to respond to the request because it considered that it was vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA) and that the complainant was acting in concert with other individuals. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly refused to respond to the requests using section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50434776

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.527903

National Audit Office (Decision Notice): ICO 26 May 2011

The complainant made a request to the National Audit Office (NAO) for information gathered to enable it to conduct an audit of the progress of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The NAO refused to provide some of the requested information under the section 33(1)(b) with section 33(2). The Commissioner considers that this exemption was correctly engaged in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 33 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50352197

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.530470

Cranfield University (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Apr 2012

The complainant requested copies of all teaching materials for the Information Operations PGCert course and associated modules. Cranfield University withheld the information under sections 24, 26, 40, 41 and 43. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the university has applied section 43 appropriately. The Information Commissioner does not require the university to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50392143

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.529388

Department for Communities and Local Government (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Nov 2012

The complainant requested information relating to legal advice sought on a particular case. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) refused to confirm or deny that it held the information citing section 42(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCLG correctly refused to confirm or deny that the information is held in accordance with section 42(2) of FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50446085

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.529994

Norwich City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Jan 2014

The complainant has requested information related to the fees and costs associated with an application to build a driveway at Birkberk Road, Norwich. Norwich City Council provided held information in response to this. The complainant contested that not all held information had been provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided all held information in response to the request. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50523519

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.527391

Liverpool City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Jan 2014

The complainant has requested information about Local Housing Allowance claims in the Liverpool City area. Liverpool City Council has refused to provide the information, relying on section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request but has breached section 16(1) of the FOIA by not offering advice and assistance to the complainant as to how his request could have been refined to bring it within the cost limit. The Commissioner requires the public authority to advise and assist the complainant with a view to refining the request to bring it within the cost limit.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50505987

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.527368

Commission v Bavarian Lager: ECJ 15 Oct 2009

ECJ Opinion – Appeal – Access to documents of Community institutions -Document relating to a meeting held in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations.
‘It should be noted that in paragraph 104 the judgment under appeal, the General Court, in examining Article 2(a) Regulation No. 45/2001, that is to say the definition of the concept of single ‘personal data’, correctly held that surnames and forenames may be regarded as personal data.’

Judges:

Sharpston AG

Citations:

C-28/08, [2009] EUECJ C-28/08 – O

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Commission v Bavarian Lager ECJ 29-Jun-2010
ECJ Appeal – Access to the documents of the institutions – Document concerning a meeting held in the context of a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations -Protection of personal data – Regulation (EC) No . .
Cited – Edem v The Information Commissioner and Another CA 7-Feb-2014
The claimant sought disclosure of the names of officials of the Financial Services Authority who had dealt with his complaint. He now appealed against reversal of an order that they be disclosed.
Held: The appeal failed. The court approved the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Information

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.380283

British Broadcasting Corporation v The Information Commissioner: Admn 2 Oct 2009

The BBC appealed against an order for it to disclose salaries of various of its employees and of payments to contractors, and of budgets for certain programmes. The issue was as to whether the information was held other than for the purposes of journalism.

Judges:

Irwin J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2348 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375612

Glasgow City Council v Scottish Information Commissioner: SCS 30 Sep 2009

‘These appeals raise important questions as to the interpretation and application of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. In particular, questions arise as to what is meant by ‘information’, as that term is used in the Act; as to who is to be treated as the ‘applicant’, as that term is used in the Act, when a request for information is made by an agent acting on behalf of another person; as to the effect of section 11 of the Act, which enables an applicant to express a preference as to the means by which information is to be provided; as to the application of the exemption, by virtue of section 25(1) of the Act, of ‘information which the applicant can reasonably obtain other than by requesting it under section 1(1)’; and as to the implications of any duty of fairness incumbent upon the Scottish Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’) in relation to decisions taken under section 49 of the Act.’

Judges:

Lord Reed, Lord Clarke, Lord Hardie

Citations:

[2009] ScotCS CSIH – 73, 2009 GWD 40-69, 2010 SLT 9

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Cited by:

Cited – The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority v The Information Commissioner and Another CA 28-Apr-2015
A journalist had requested the appellant who published the claims made by Members of Parliament for expenses to its website had requested in addition copies of the receipts produced by the MPs to justify three claims. The Authority provided a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375409

St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Health): ICO 22 Jan 2021

The complainant requested information regarding the funding of pathology services. St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust initially withheld all relevant information, but partially withdrew its reliance on the exemption and disclosed some information during the internal review process. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust did not comply with its duties under section 1 of the FOIA within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA when responding to the request. As a satisfactory response has now been issued, no further steps are required.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-78166

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.658016

Financial Conduct Authority (Local Government (Other)): ICO 19 May 2015

The complainant has requested information about a named insurance company. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the complainant narrowed the scope of his request to six particular documents he believed the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) would hold. The FCA identified one document and an accompanying letter which fell within the scope of the refined request. Although it has not yet done so it said it was happy to disclose the document subject to a number of redactions under section 40(2) – third party personal data and section 44 – statutory prohibition on disclosure. In respect of the other documents requested the FCA informed the Commissioner that the information was either not held or did not fall within the scope of the request as originally phrased. The Commissioner’s decision is that Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) can rely on sections 40(2) and 44 to withhold information from the one document and accompanying letter it has identified. However it is required to provide the rest of the information from those documents. The Commissioner is satisfied that the FCA does not hold the other information that has been requested or that it was not captured by the request as originally phrased. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the ‘Written Notice’ giving permission for the sale of Cardrow Insurance Ltd to Cardrow Ltd, together with the accompanying letter, except for the information the Commissioner has identified as being exempt under sections 40(2) and 44. As from the 1 April 2013 the Financial Services Authority was succeeded by the FCA. References in this decision to the FCA are also to its predecessor the Financial Services Authority.
FOI 40: Partly upheld FOI 44: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50559076

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.555397

Legal Ombudsman (Education (Other)): ICO 5 May 2015

The complainant requested information about in-house documentation in relation to the training and guidance of staff dealing with complaints. The Legal Ombudsman for England and Wales (the Legal Ombudsman) provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing sections 12 and 14 of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit and vexatious request respectively). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Legal Ombudsman was entitled to apply section 14. He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566650

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.555409

East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust (Health (NHS)): ICO 26 May 2015

The complainant has requested information on a trainee doctor at East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust (‘the Trust’). The Trust has failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to comply with section 1 and section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to respond to the complainant’s request: firstly, confirm or deny if the requested information is held. If the information is held the Trust must either disclose the requested information or issue a refusal notice in compliance with section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50575584

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.555396

Police Service of Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Jul 2012

The complainant requested information relating to automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras operated by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (the PSNI). The PSNI refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI was entitled to refuse the request, and does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50430642

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.529659

Department of The Environment (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Nov 2012

The complainant requested information including minutes of meetings, emails and memoranda relating to various recycling lands and sites. The Department of the Environment (DOE) disclosed some information but refused to provide the remaining information under regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(b) (the course of justice), and 12(4)(d) (unfinished documents) of EIR. The complainant was dissatisfied with the response and requested in writing a review of the decision to refuse the request. DOE failed to conduct an internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that DOE breached regulations 11(3) and 11(4) of EIR in failing to conduct an internal review. The Commissioner requires the public authority to conduct an internal review which meets the requirements of EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0433143

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.529999

Harrow Council (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Sep 2011

The complainant requested the Council to release all documents that were submitted to the Budgetary Challenge Panels in October 2010 for the setting of the council’s budget for 2011 and 2012. The Council responded to this request refusing to release this information under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 36(2)(c) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that Council correctly relied on section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act for the non disclosure of the requested information. As the Council complied with the provisions of the Act in this case he requires no further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0253 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50375840

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.530848

Northern Ireland Assembly (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Sep 2011

The complainant has requested information from the NI Assembly on a submission made to it in July 2002. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that NI Assembly has correctly applied section 1 of FOIA, since it does not hold the information. The Information Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50363468

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.530876

Warrington Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Apr 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to a proposal to develop Peel Hall, an area in Warrington. The Commissioner’s decision is that Warrington Borough Council (the ‘Council’) has correctly refused to disclose information covered by the scope of the requests under regulations 12(4)(e) and regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not therefore require the Council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0429801

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.529437

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Jan 2014

The complainant has requested the names of all companies that submitted a request to participate and the names of all companies that submitted tenders for a particular contract. The BBC confirmed that it did not hold the names of companies that had submitted tenders as no tenders had been submitted at the time of the request. It withheld the names of companies that submitted a request to participate under section 22 and section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has correctly applied 43(2) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50510317

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.527298

Derbyshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 May 2012

The complainants requested information relating to investigations carried out by Derbyshire Trading Standards in connection with choking incidents and complaints regarding Swizzels Matlow products. The Commissioner’s decision is that Derbyshire County Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 30(1)(b) where information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50418507

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.529477

Walberswick Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 May 2012

The complainant has requested information related to how specific Councillors responded to an email from the Parish Clerk. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, Walberswick Parish Council has not provided a response to the request in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner therefore reminds Walberswick Parish 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 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50421923

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.529537

BBC (Decision Notice) FS50523299: ICO 23 Jan 2014

The complainant has requested photographs taken in Zambia on 24 October 1964. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50523299

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.527303

Huntingdonshire District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 19 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information on job evaluation (JE) scores provided for each job that exists at the council. The council claimed that the information was exempt under section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information provided in confidence). It also applied section 21 (information available by other means) to some information falling within the scope of the request. On review the council withdrew its reliance upon section 41 but continued to apply the other exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply sections 43(2). He has however decided that section 21 was correctly applied to the information which the council outlined was already available via the council intranet and via cabinet papers. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information to which section 21 does not apply. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 21: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50543323

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.555209

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Jan 2013

The complainant has written to the UK Border Agency (UKBA), an executive agency of the Home Office, to obtain information about British Overseas citizens. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests sent by the complainant do not constitute requests under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act). No further action is required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50461097

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.527830

Sussex Police (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Nov 2013

The complainant submitted a request to Sussex Police for an operations manual about radar devices. By the date of this notice Sussex Police had yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police breached section 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to issue a response under the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50505595

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.528934

Makepeace v Information Commissioner: FTTGRC 17 Dec 2013

The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 – dismissed – properly request for personal information under 1998 Act.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT EA – 2013 – 0216 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.519451

Department for International Development (Central Government): ICO 21 May 2019

The complainant submitted two requests to the Department for International Development (DFID). In relation to the first request, after extending the time it needed to complete its public interest test considerations, DFID initially responded by stating that it held the information albeit it was exempt from disclosure, but at the internal review stage concluded that it did not hold any information in scope of the request. In relation to the second request DFID refused to comply with this on basis of section 12(1) (cost limit). The complainant was unhappy with the length of time taken to respond to the first request and sought to dispute the application of section 12(1) to the second request. The Commissioner has concluded that DFID is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA in relation to the second request but in respect of the first request it breached section 17(3) of FOIA by failing to complete its public interest considerations within a reasonable timeframe and also section 10(1) by failing to confirm, within 20 working days of the request, that it did not hold the requested information.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50737328

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.638677

Department for International Development (Central Government): ICO 22 Nov 2017

The complainant has submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) for information about its decision to suspend payments to Development Aid People to People Malawi. DFID refused to answer the request on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA because it estimated that fulfilling the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner has concluded that DFID is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse this request. She has also concluded that DFID complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA by providing the complainant with advice and assistance to allow him to submit a revised request.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50686269

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.602390

Department for International Development (Central Government): ICO 26 Sep 2017

The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) for information about Adam Smith International. DFID confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but explained that it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test. To date, DFID has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations. By failing to complete these deliberations within a reasonable timeframe the Commissioner has concluded that DFID has breached section 17(3) of FOIA.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50692999

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.602172

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 15 Jan 2018

The complainant asked the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) to confirm or deny whether it was conducting, or intending to conduct, a particular investigation. The MPS would neither confirm nor deny any such investigation citing the exemptions at section 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(5)(b)(i) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to rely on section 40(5)(b)(i) to neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation; she did not therefore consider the citing of section 30(3). No steps are required.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50688381

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.617391

Department for International Development (Central Government): ICO 28 Mar 2018

The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks on The Department for International Development (DfID). The department neither confirmed nor denied whether it held information within scope of the request, relying on the exclusion at section 31(3) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that DfID was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within scope of the first part of the request, but was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the second part of the request.
FOI 31: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50662675

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.617574

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 21 Aug 2017

The complainant made 4 multi-limbed information requests to the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). Having initially found that all the requests were vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA the MPS subsequently revised its position. It provided some information and determined that it either didn’t hold the remaining information or that it would exceed the cost limit at section 12(2) of the FOIA to establish whether or not it was held; it provided advice and assistance to the complaint who did not revise any part of his requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS correctly concluded that either the information was not held or that section 12(2) applies; she also finds that it complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16(1) of the FOIA. No steps are required.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50672293

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.593979

Department for International Development (Central Government): ICO 19 Sep 2018

The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) seeking information about the UK’s involvement in training the Libyan coastguard. DFID provided him with some of the information falling within the scope of his request but sought to withhold further information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of these exemptions and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours withholding the information.
FOI 27: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50733635

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.628390

Department for International Development (Central Government): ICO 16 May 2017

The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) for a copy of a report produced by KPMG in respect of the administration of how a research programme was being conducted by a Sri Lankan based non-governmental organisation, the International Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES). DFID withheld the information on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations), 40(2) (personal data), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemption contained at section 41(1) of FOIA.
FOI 41: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50663088

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.593663

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 15 Feb 2018

The complainant made two information requests about Jean Charles de Menezes and Cressida Dick to the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS found the requests to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50707518

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.617496

Department for International Development (Central Government): ICO 14 Aug 2017

The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) for a copy of an evaluation report of the Pilot Health PPP Advisory Facility. DFID sought to withhold this information on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 27(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d), and 27(2) (international relations), 43(2) (commercial interests) and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(2) of FOIA.
FOI 27: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50672673

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.593938

Department for International Development (Central Government): ICO 18 Dec 2017

The complainant has requested information regarding contracts between the Department for International Development (DfID) and external organisations. DfID aggregated the requests as provided under section 12(4) of the Act and refused to comply with the requests citing section 12(1) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfID is entitled to aggregate the requests under section 12(4) and is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the Act to refuse to comply with the requests. However, the Commissioner considers that DfID has not complied with its obligations under section 16 of the Act to provide the complainant with reasonable advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with sufficient advice and assistance to enable her to make a meaningful request under the Act. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50681722

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.602488

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 24 Jul 2017

The complainant has requested information about meetings held in respect of a particular investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The Commissioner’s decision is that, although it has complied with section 10(1) in confirming that information is held, and 17(1) in stating which exemptions are to be relied upon, by failing to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time period the MPS has breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. Additionally, as it subsequently relied on section 12(2)(cost of compliance), rather than the exemptions previously cited for delaying its response, she finds a further breach of section 17(5). As a response has since been provided, no steps are required.
FOI 10: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50669718

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.593867

Department for International Development (Central Government): ICO 22 Mar 2018

The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) concerning allegations about Development Aid from People to People (DAPP). DFID confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but explained that it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test. To date, DFID has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations in relation to the request. By failing to complete these deliberations within a reasonable timeframe the Commissioner has concluded that DFID has breached section 17(3) of FOIA in respect of its handling of this request.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO FS50731784

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.617575

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 30 Nov 2017

The complainant has requested information about the loss of 13 murder files from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS refused to provide the information citing sections 30(1)(a) (investigations and proceedings), 38(1)(a) (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 38(1)(a) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 38: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50683418

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.602426

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 24 Aug 2017

The complainant has requested numbers of police officers who were employed with pre-existing drink driving convictions from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS advised that to confirm or deny whether or not it holds any information would exceed the cost limit at section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 12(2) and she also finds no breach of section 16(1) (advice and assistance). No steps are required.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50675246

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.593980

Cubells v Information Commissioner: FTTGRC 2 Aug 2013

Dismissed : Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT EA – 2012 – 0236 (GRC, EA/2014/0066

Links:

Bailii, ICO

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Cubells, Regina (on The Application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission CA 15-Oct-2012
The claimant’s mother had died in hospital. The claimant said that she had died as a result of failures by doctors, and had asked the coroner and police to investigate his allegation that she had been deliberately harmed to cover up missed . .

Cited by:

See Also – Cubells v Information Commissioner FTTGRC 2-Dec-2013
FTTG FOIA s.40 (5) (b) (I) Data Protection Act, 1998 (‘the DPA’) Schedule 1, Part 1 Requests for personal data. . .
See Also – Cubells v Information Commissioner (The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009) FTTGRC 17-Jul-2014
Application to have claim struck out by consent. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.517946

Woolley v Information Commissioner: FTTGRC 25 Nov 2013

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT EA – 2013 – 0125 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Information Commissioner v Dransfield UTAA 28-Jan-2013
UTAA Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT) – statements of reasons – The public authority was entitled to rely on section 14(1) and to conclude that the request dated 29 May 2010 was vexatious within the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.519444

Roberts v Information Commissioner (Dismissed :Freedom of Information Act 2000): FTTGRC 31 Oct 2013

Freedom of Information Act 2000, and the engagement of the exemption under Section 36(2), 40(1), 40(2) and 42 and the application of the public interest test.
Held: The Tribunal upholds the decision notice (FS50433433) dated 26 February 2013 and dismisses the appeal.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT EA – 2013 – 0059 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.517979