Copy of the equal pay audit commissioned in 2005 by Glasgow City Council

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 184 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434454

Information about the PFI project for Inverness Airport Terminal

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 183 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434457

Legal advice to Presiding Officer on legislative competence of a private member’s Bill

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 209 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434474

Annual surplus generated by Dundee Contract Services

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 181 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434426

Property at 222 High Street, Leslie

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 093 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434357

Request for information relating to the number of vehicles caught and the revenue raised by fixed safety cameras in the Tayside area.

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 094 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434360

Cost estimates of the Scottish Green Party’s policies in their Scottish Parliament manifestos

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 140 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434396

Communications between members of the Fire Board and the Management Team of Strathclyde Fire and Rescue

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 128 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434212

Request for information regarding the removal and replacement of play equipment

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 138 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434411

Failure to respond to a request for information and a request for review

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 127 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434417

Request for copies of documents held by Moray Council relating to a disturbance at a named address

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 113 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434363

Request for details of CAP subsidy payments made to Scottish farmers in 2002-03 and 2003-04.

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 142 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434393

Request for information concerning the past five Chief Constables of Grampian Police, and if any of them had a criminal record

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 152 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434406

Information relating to the care, treatment and death of Joseph Doherty

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 157 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434402

Information on accounts of applicant and NHS Trust

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 099 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434364

Request for copy of investigator’s report and expert reports

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 120 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434391

Request for various pieces of information relating to a dispute regarding title to a particular property

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 096 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434358

Request for details of a complaint made by Mr Milne to the Chief Constable of Tayside Police

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 135 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434410

Request for legal advice

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 133 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434392

Information about the proposal for a ‘Users’ Charter’ on Gourock-Dunoon ferry services

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 114 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434389

Judges:

Fenwick QC J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1570 (QB), [2007] IRLR 700

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.254517

Information Rights – Freedom of Information – Qualified Exemptions

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 119 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.639467

The complainant requested information about planning objections from the Royal Borough of Greenwich (the ‘Council’). Initially, the Council said it did not hold this information; however during the Commissioner’s investigation the Council revised its position. It instead wished to rely on the cost and burden of complying with the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b), manifestly unreasonable, of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the exception for manifestly unreasonable requests at regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. He also finds that the requested information constitutes environmental information and therefore should have been considered under the EIR from the outset.
EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0562196

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555352

The complainant has requested from Melton Borough Council (‘the council’) the information and any correspondence that was provided to the Commissioner by the council in the course of serving a decision notice on a previous request made by the complainant (FER0447142). The council considers that the exemption at 36(2)(b)(ii) applies to the information, as in the opinion of the qualified person, its disclosure would be likely to inhibit the free and frank exchange of views. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) to the information, but that the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the withheld information with the exception of a small amount of information that has been disclosed to the complainant in response to a subject access request and which is therefore exempt under section 40(1) of the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0124 withdrawn.
FOI 36: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50558019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555334

The complainant requested information from Milton Keynes Council (‘the council’) about whether there had been an application for adverse possession of a particular area of land. The council refused to respond to the request on the basis that it was vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been considered under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). He found that the exception under regulation 12(4)(b), which relates to manifestly unreasonable requests, was engaged and the public interest did not favour disclosure. The council breached regulation 14(2) and 14(3)(a) and (b) because it did not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. There are no steps to take. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld EIR 14: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50562489

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555335

The complainant has requested information which he believes was sent to a named person by North East Lincolnshire Council. The information is thought to concern the depositing of debris on the highway by the named individual. The Council responded to the complainant’s request by neither confirming nor denying whether it held the requested information in reliance on section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the provisions of section 40(5) in the circumstances of this case. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566217

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555346

The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation regarding horse meat in Asda Smart Price Corned Beef. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leicestershire 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.
FOI 30: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50562632

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555332

The complainant made a request for the subject line of emails which contained both the words ‘amateur’ and ‘interference’. The Office of Communications (Ofcom) refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofcom has correctly applied the vexatious provision at section 14(1). He does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568116

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555237

The complainant has requested information about the full details of the rejected Care UK contract bid for the Eccleshill NHS treatment centre that was not renewed and has led to the closure of the centre. BCCCG provided the complainant with some information relevant to the scope of the request but refused to provide a piece of information under section 43 and 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the BCCCG correctly applied section 44(1)(a) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50564659

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555274

The complainant has requested correspondence between the Bristol City Council and a named individual regarding the erection of a signpost. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bristol City Council has correctly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50561880

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555275

The complainant has requested recorded information relating to different types of statutory notices issued by Devon County Council, notably under the Highways Act 1980. The Council refused to comply with the complainant’s request in reliance of section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information sought by the complainant constitutes environmental information and therefore falls to be considered under the EIR. He finds that Devon County Council is entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) as its grounds for refusing to comply with the request on the basis that it would be manifestly unreasonable to do so. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action in this matter.
EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50558524

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555302

The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Barnet (‘the Council’) information relating to the estimated costs of court and bailiff matters and the rescinding of a Liability order. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not deal with the request for information in accordance with FOIA by failing to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568214

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555269

ICO The complainant has made a request to Darlington Borough Council (‘the council’) for information relating to housing classification. The council responded outside the time for compliance provided by section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached the requirement of section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50578391

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555292

The complainant has made a request to Darlington Borough Council (‘the council’) for information relating to complaints investigation. The council responded outside the time for compliance provided by section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached the requirement of section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50578465

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555294

The complainant has asked to be given the name of a person who made a complaint to the Isle of Wight Council (‘the Council’) about alleged noise nuisance coming from the complainant’s property. The Commissioner finds that the information sought by the complainant constitutes personal data and that its disclosure would be unfair to the data subject. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the requested information on the grounds that it is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50575510

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555323

The complainant has made a request to Darlington Borough Council (‘the council’) for information relating to disability impact surveys. The council responded outside the time for compliance provided by section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached the requirement of section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50578508

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555297

ICO The complainant has made a request to Darlington Borough Council (‘the council’) for information relating to the Dolphin Centre. The council responded outside the time for compliance provided by section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached the requirement of section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50564188

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555291

The complainant has requested various information relating to the Legal Ombudsman’s investigation processes. The Legal Ombudsman said that it did not hold the information requested by the complainant under section 1(1)(a) FOIA, however it tried to answer the complainant’s questions outside of FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the Legal Ombudsman was correct to confirm that it did not hold any information under section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50571405

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555331

The complainant has requested a breakdown of employment costs. Bishops Cleeve Parish Council (the council) refused the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considered it to be third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50564246

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.555273

The complainant requested copies of legally binding agreements between the Homes and Communities Agency (‘HCA’) and Langtree Artisan relating to the former Odeon cinema in Bradford. HCA disclosed a copy of the agreement, subject to a small amount of information contained within the agreement which it withheld under section 43 of the FOIA. HCA considered that the request may fall under the provisions of the EIR and sought to also apply regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the correct access regime is the EIR and HCA correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e) to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0456167

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.527977

The complainant has requested information in relation to a long-standing issue he has with the public authority. The public authority advises that it did not receive the request, but as the complainant chased a response shortly after making his request, the public authority was able to ask for a copy of the request still within the 20 working day limit for compliance. A copy was not submitted. The Information Commissioner concludes that there was no breach of the FOIA and he does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50468176

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.527912

The complainant requested information from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (the council) concerning minutes and copies of correspondence between the South London Connexions Sub-regional Unit and other London Boroughs in relation to the Connexions Information Advice and Guidance Service between particular dates. The council refused to provide the requested information and cited section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the council has failed to provide any evidence to him that the exemption at section 12(1) applies. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response under the FOIA that does not rely on section 12(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50458316

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.528008

Forth and Tay Bridges: information relating to traffic modelling and tolls

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 217 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434479

Special Branch files containing the title ‘Scottish National Party’

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 128 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434585

Requests for a copy of documents associated with a Children’s Panel Hearing

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 205 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434469

PFI/PPP contracts for schools in Edinburgh

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 154 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434403

Request for copy of legal advice and identity of individual providing advice

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 131 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434404

Information relating to prisoners absconding from Castle Huntly and Noranside open prisons

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 189 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434463

Copy of PFI Contract

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 190 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434468

Failure to respond to request for review

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 103 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434367

Information about two murals commissioned by Strathclyde Regional Council

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 092 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434355

Names of school staff and owners of specific motor vehicles

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 206 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434450

Request for copy of letter passed between the Scottish Ministers and Whitehall on the subject of oil and gas taxation

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 180 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434443

Qualifications of second marker

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 169 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434442

European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) Headquarters

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 187 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434458

Request for information relating to details of individual expense claims

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 176 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434432

Correspondence relating to Stonewall or the Pride Scotia event

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 149 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434395

Proposed upgrading of Colinton Mains Park

Citations:

[2007] ScotIC 179 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.434433

ICO The complainant requested information in respect of two documents which the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales had previously refused to provide in response to a subject access request. The PSOW refused to disclose them by virtue of section 40(2) and section 44(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSOW correctly relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA in relation to these documents. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50523108

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.527399

ICO The complainant requested information in relation to all freedom of information requests and responses dealt with by Magherafelt District Council (the Council) during 2009. The Council confirmed it held the required information and issued the complainant with a fees notice under section 9 of the Act. During the course of the investigation the Council subsequently advised the Commissioner that it considered some of the information exempt under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the Council breached section 17(1) of the Act in that it failed to issue a refusal notice in relation to the information it considered exempt under section 40(2). The Commissioner finds that the fee charged under section 9(1) for communicating the information was reasonable, but the Council failed to offer appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant, breaching section 16 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 9 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50307318

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.531876

ICO The complainant requested information from Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council (the Council) about the PREVENT programme. The Council provided some information but withheld the remainder citing the section 31 exemption (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that some information was incorrectly withheld under sections 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime) and (b) (apprehension or prosecution of offenders). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the information identified in the confidential annex.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50482459

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.528633

ICO The complainants requested information concerning the provision of legal advice about the composition of the Academic Board at the Royal Holloway University of London. RHUL refused the request under section 14(1) and 14(2) of the FOIA. The complainants do not accept the application of section 14. They also argue that RHUL has not provided a valid refusal notice as it does not provide particulars of any internal review procedure or confirm that such a procedure does not exist. The Commissioner’s decision is that RHUL is correct to apply section 14(1) of the FOIA to the request and is entitled to refuse to conduct an internal review. No steps are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50517265

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.527402

ICO The complainant requested information about a complaint concerning a potential breach of planning regulations and subsequent documentation created following receipt of that complaint. The public authority released some of the information but refused to release the remainder on the basis it was exempt under sections 30, 31, 40 and 42 of the Act. The Commissioner found that these exemptions had been properly applied to the information that has been withheld and has not upheld that part of the complaint.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50081570

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.533595

ICO The complainant has requested information concerning the cost to the public authority of a named solicitor firm. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to confirm whether it held the requested information within the statutory time limit. However, as it provided a response shortly after the time limit expired he does not require it to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50443960

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.529424

ICO The complainant requested copies of correspondence between a named developer and Mid Suffolk District Council (MSDC) regarding two planning decision notices which he alleged had been altered after publication. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that MSDC did not deal with the request under the correct legislation. Access to environmental information should be considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the ‘EIR’). The Information Commissioner, therefore, requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the EIR: provide the information requested in compliance with regulation 5(1), or; issue a valid refusal notice in compliance with regulation 12 or regulation 14.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50390240

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.530981

ICO The complainant requested information about whether the Council censored the local press, pointing to guidance for local authorities on community cohesion issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government that indicated that they worked together. The public authority responded that it did not hold any recorded information about this issue. The parties have agreed that on the balance of probabilities no relevant recorded information was held. However, the Commissioner has determined that the Council has breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) in failing to explicitly deny it held relevant recorded information within the statutory timescales. The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50236056

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.532193

ICO The complainant has requested information about a police helicopter and to date he has not received a substantive response. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. He requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 10 of the FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Information Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50486136

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.528402

The complainant requested information regarding three separate planning applications and the associated planning enforcement files. The public authority initially refused to disclose some of the requested information; however during the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority decided, that given the passage of time it would be appropriate to release the requested information. The complainant considers that the public authority holds further information. Therefore the Commissioner has considered if further information is held. He has concluded that on the balance of probabilities the public authority does not hold any further information and does not require the public authority to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 2.1 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FER0304206

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.531880

ICO The complainant made a request for information to Oxford City Council (the council) in the form of 30 questions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has, on the balance of probabilities, provided all the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has also determined that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not provide the information within the required 20 working days. As the council has now provided the information, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. However, he does expect the council to take note of the timeframe in which it provided all of the information to the complainant, that being over 14 months.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50476582

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.527394

ICO The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the London Borough of Lambeth (‘the Council’). The Council claimed that the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43 applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner has also decided that the information requested does not constitute a trade secret and therefore section 43(1) does not apply. Whilst the Council did not raise the issue of the section 41 exemption (information provided in confidence), the Commissioner has decided that that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption would not be engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50155409

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.532541

The complainant requested information from Staffordshire Police about the cost of a visit to its area by the Prince of Wales. Staffordshire Police initially refused to disclose some of the requested information, and said that it did not hold the remainder. Following an internal review, it told the complainant that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Staffordshire Police does not hold the requested information. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50512734

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.527411

ICO The complainant requested six pieces of information connected with the investigation of a serious allegation that was made against him. The public authority refused to provide this information citing Section 30(1) (Information obtained during an investigation), Section 38 (Health and Safety), Section 40(1) (Personal Data relating to the applicant) and Section 40(2) (Unfair Disclosure of Personal Data). In relation to the withheld information, the Commissioner has decided that the names of the accusers and the officers involved in the investigation, arrest and detention of the complainant constitues his personal data and that DCC appropriately cited section 40(1) in relation to this information. However the Commissioner is also of the view that Section 40(5) should have also been claimed over this information and that the public authority therefore was not compelled to comply with section 1(1)(a) and confirm or deny if this information was held. The Commissioner was advised that a considerable amount of information within the scope of the request had already been disclosed to the complainant under the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘the DPA’) during 2002. The Commissioner has identified a limited amount of additional information that constitutes the complainant’s personal data that was not disclosed to him at that time. He will now make a separate assessment under section 42 of the DPA in respect of that information. DCC breached section 1(1)(a) in failing to inform the complainant that the whereabouts of the accusers was not held. DCC appropriately cited section 40(2) in relation to information about the complainant’s wife and son and to information about the whereabouts of officers who dealt with him who had retired at the stage the request was received. However, the Commissioner has decided that DCC inappropriately refused to provide information about which station serving officers involved with the complainant were assigned to at the time of the request on the basis that section 40(2) applied. He has further determined that section 30(1) was inappropriately applied to that information. He has therefore ordered DCC to release the station addresses of serving officers who dealt with the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50082768

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.533114

The complainant asked the public authority for ‘all data pertaining to’ a freedom of information request which he had made previously. The public authority withheld some information under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’) and the rest under section 36. The Commissioner decided that information had been correctly withheld under section 42. Of the remaining information, he decided that it was exempt under section 36(2) but the public interest favoured disclosure, although part of the information relating to the identity of officials dealing with the complainant’s request together with references to other individuals’ freedom of information requests was exempt under section 40. The Commissioner also decided that the public authority did not comply with its obligations under section 17(1) in that it had failed to provide an adequate explanation of the public interest factors applicable to the exemption in section 36(2).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50173585

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 36 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.532386

ICO The complainant has requested information concerning plans for the development of an area of land. Malvern Hills District Council (MHDC) refused to disclose this information under exceptions from the obligation to disclose in the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that MHDC has applied an exception correctly in relation to some of the information. In relation to other information that MHDC had previously indicated it no longer believed to be exempt, the Commissioner concludes that this information should be disclosed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50390500

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.530861

The complainant requested details as to whether Lincolnshire Police (the Police) had received any complaints – other than the two which he had apparently made to the Police himself – about Lincolnshire County Council staff or Councillors between the dates of January 2006 and February 2011. The Police refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling with the scope of this request, initially relying on section 40(5) -‘ the personal data exemption – of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Police also sought to rely on the exemptions contained at section 30(3) and 31(3) which relate to the conduct of investigations and matters of law enforcement respectively. The Commissioner has concluded that the Police are not entitled to rely on the exemption contained at 40(5) to refuse to confirm whether or not it holds the information requested but are entitled to do on the basis of section 30(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner has also concluded that the Police breached section 17 of FOIA by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50417373

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.529567

ICO An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Leeds City Council. This follows a report made by the council that that a private area on the Leeds Initiative website was accessible to members of the public.

Citations:

[2012] UKICO 2012-29

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.530021

ICO An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by the Aneurin Bevan Health Board. This follows an incident where a sensitive report – containing explicit details relating to a patient’s health – was sent to the wrong person. This breach was also the subject of a monetary penalty.

Citations:

[2012] UKICO 2012-34

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.529371

The complainant requested the name and address of the solicitor who had provided advice to the Child Support Agency (the CSA) in relation to an application for a special payment referral. The CSA provided the name of the corporate section in which the solicitor worked and its address, but refused to disclose the actual name of the solicitor citing the exemptions at sections 36(2)(c) and 38 of the Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority also cited the exemption at section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the information is the personal data of the solicitor, the disclosure of which would breach the first data protection principle. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the public authority applied the Act appropriately in citing the section 40(2) exemption. However, the Commissioner decided that the authority initially breached sections 10 and 17 of the Act.
FOI 40: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50156539

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.532713

ICO The complainant requested information relation to a tendering procedure for the development at Threescore in Bowthorpe. This request was refused under section 14(1) as the request was considered vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that Norwich City Council (‘the Council’) should have handled the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’) as opposed to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner has also concluded that the request was not manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the information to the complainant in accordance with regulation 5 of the EIR; or issue a valid refusal notice explaining the reasons why it will not disclose this information in accordance with regulation 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50373078

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.531002

Company directors used council employee to illegally access tenants’ details
A Slough letting agent and one of its directors who unlawfully obtained details about their tenants from a rogue employee at Slough Borough Council have been found guilty of committing offences under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).
At Reading Magistrates today, SAI Property Investments Limited, trading as IPS Property Services and represented at today’s hearing by Director Mr Punjab Sandhu, was fined andpound;260.00 for two offences under the Act and ordered to pay a andpound;15 victim surcharge and andpound;702.08 prosecution costs. Another director at the company, Sundeep Jaswal, was fined andpound;260.00 for two offences and ordered to pay a andpound;15 victim surcharge and andpound;351.03 prosecution costs.
Ounkar Singh Nainu – who supplied both men with information relating to individuals in receipt of Housing and Council Tax Benefit, whilst employed at the council as a Customer Service Advisor – has been fined andpound;690.00 for three offences and ordered to pay a andpound;15 victim surcharge and andpound;351.03 prosecution costs.
The first offence took place in September 2009 when Jaswal made contact with Nainu and asked him to obtain personal data about some of their tenants from housing benefit records. This information was provided without the Council’s knowledge and used by the company to chase up their tenant’s outstanding debts. An unsuccessful attempt was then made to obtain further information from the Council’s records in March 2010.
The Council received an anonymous tip-off that Nainu had been illegally accessing the data, and launched an immediate investigation before reporting the matter to the ICO.
Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, said:
‘This case clearly demonstrates the contempt that all three individuals held for the privacy rights of the people affected.
‘The council employee was responsible for handling important information relating to some of the council’s most vulnerable residents. He abused his position hoping to make money and found two unscrupulous individuals who were happy to acquire this information through any means necessary.
‘This case highlights the need for a more appropriate range of deterrent punishments to be made available to the courts. There must be no further delay in introducing tougher powers to enforce the Data Protection Act, otherwise unscrupulous individuals will continue to see a mere fine as a price worth paying.’
Unlawfully obtaining or accessing personal data is a criminal offence under Section 55 of the DPA. Offenders can be fined up to andpound;5000 at Magistrates Court or an unlimited amount at Crown Court. This also applies to attempts under the Criminal Attempts Act. The ICO continues to call for more effective deterrent sentences, including custodial, to be made available to courts to prevent the unlawful use of personal information.

Citations:

[2012] UKICO 2012-57

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.529346

ICO The complainant submitted a number of requests to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) which focused on correspondence which the DCMS may have exchanged with HRH The Prince of Wales and representatives of His Royal Highness. The DCMS initially refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the requests on the basis of section 37(2) of the Act -‘ communications with the Royal Household. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the DCMS dropped its reliance on section 37(2) and confirmed to the complainant that it did hold information falling within the scope of his requests, albeit that it could not provide the information because to do so would exceed the appropriate cost limit at section 12(1) of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that some of the information which would fall within the scope of the complainant’s requests is environmental information as defined by the EIR. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that the DCMS is entitled to refuse to provide this environmental information because the requests are manifestly unreasonable. With regard to the non-environmental information the Commissioner is satisfied that to provide this information would exceed the cost limit at section 12(1). However, the Commissioner has concluded that the DCMS failed to provide the complainant with sufficient advice and assistance to that he could submit a refined request that could be fulfilled within the cost limit. The Commissioner has ordered the DCMS to provide this advice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 9 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50143525

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.531333

The complainant has requested information relating to the PACE Trial carried out by Queen Mary University London (QMUL). The Commissioner’s decision is that QMUL has correctly applied section 40(2) to the withheld information. Therefore the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps in relation to this decision notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50514995

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.527400

ICO The complainant requested various pieces of information relating to communications between the public authority and members of The Royal Household. The public authority withheld all of the information held on the basis of the exemptions at sections 41 (information provided in confidence), 37(1)(a) (Communications with The Royal Household), and 40(2) (Personal data). In the event the Commissioner found that any of the withheld information fell within the scope of environmental information, the public authority additionally sought to rely on the exceptions at regulations 12(5)(d) (the confidentiality of proceedings),12(5)(f) (the interests of the person who provided the information) and 13(1) (personal data). The Commissioner finds that most of the information held was correctly withheld on the basis of regulation 12(5)(f), and the remainder was also correctly withheld on the basis of section 41. However, he finds the public authority in breach of sections 17(1) (late reliance on an exemption from the duty to confirm or deny), 17(1)(b) (late reliance on exemptions from the duty to disclose), regulation 14(2) (late reliance exceptions from the duty to disclose).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50144197

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.531331

The complainant requested information relating to the council’s sale of land in Mickley. The council provided a report it had undertaken into the sale of the land stating that this would answer his concerns. However the complainant wrote back stating that the report did not answer the specific questions he had asked the council to respond to. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant is correct in arguing that the report does not answer all of his specific requests, although it does respond to some of them. However during the Commissioner’s investigation the council fully responded to the complainant. He therefore requires no steps to be taken by the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that North East Derbyshire District Council (the council) did not respond fully to the complainant within the specified time period of 20 working days required by section 10(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50470926

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.528377

The complainant requested information the Charity Commission held in relation to its inquiry into the Mariam Appeal. This request was refused on the basis that the information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of the exemptions contained at sections 27, 31, 32, 40, 41 and 42 of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that all of the requested information is exempt by virtue of the sections 32(2)(a) and 32(2)(b). However, in handling this request the Commissioner has also concluded that the public authority failed to provide a refusal notice compliant with sections 17(1)(b), 17(1)(c) and 17(3) of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2008/0083 part allowed.
FOI 32: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50182912

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.532712