The complainant requested information relating to the Self Evident App. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the MPS to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50845162

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.643237

The complainant requested information regarding a particular criminal investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MPS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50836676

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.643142

Application for misuse of private information

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1138 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.650668

Citations:

[2016] ScotIC 113 – 2016

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.566598

Dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 2014 – 0069 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.526477

Successful appeal against refusal to disclose identities of dog breeders licensed by the local authority.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 2012 – 0238 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.473047

The Complainant requested all internal documents from the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) relating to the purchase of art works by an individual and the National Council for Art Culture and Heritage (NCAH) in Qatar. The Complainant also requested communications between DCMS and any outside bodies regarding the purchases. DCMS disclosed all the communications it held with outside bodies but refused to disclose internal documents relating to the individual or the NCAH under sections 40, 41 and 44 and on the grounds of cost. During the course of the investigation the Commissioner established that the cost limit was being applied to all the information being withheld and so focused his investigation on this. The Commissioner’s decision is that to obtain and disclose the information in the remainder of the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50117249

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.532927

(Dismissed)

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 2019 – 0398 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650701

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 2019 – 0316 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650705

The complainant requested a variety of information relating to ‘water collection’ in the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the London Borough). The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50877458

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650441

The complainant requested a blank copy of the tenancy agreement issued by the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the London Borough) to temporary tenants. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough provided the requested information to the complainant within twenty working days, but, in the first instance, failed to provide it in the format specified by the complainant. The Commissioner therefore decides that the London Borough breached section 11(1) of the FOIA.
FOI 11: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50878089

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650443

The complainant had requested information from London Borough of Waltham Forest (the London Borough) about the ‘Mall Walthamstow’ development. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough did not breach either Regulations 5(2) or 6(1) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR).
EIR 5(2): Complaint not upheld EIR 6(1): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50878058

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650442

The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking emails held by the Nigerian section which mentioned certain key words relating to an oil field. The FCO provided some information falling within the scope of the request but withheld parts of the information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (b) (international relations), 31(1)(a) and (c) (law enforcement) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. It also refused to confirm or deny whether it held any further information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 23(5) (security bodies) and 24(2) (national security) of FOIA. The complainant argued that the FCO should have considered his request under the EIR and in any event disputed the application of the various FOIA exemptions it had cited. The Commissioner has concluded that the request should be considered under FOIA and that the FCO is entitled to rely on sections 27(1)(a) and 40(2) to withhold information. She has also concluded that FCO is entitled to rely on sections 23(5) and 24(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any further information.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 27: Complaint not upheld FOI 24: Complaint not upheld FOI 23: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50845427

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650409

The complainant requested information drawn from the Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) conducted by Ridge and Partners LLP for Northwood Tower for the period 29 June 2018 to 29 June 2019. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Waltham Forest (‘the Council’) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50860467

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.643345

The complainant requested a list of all .gov.uk domain names from the Central Office of Information (COI). COI initially responded to the request by informing the complainant that it did not hold the requested information. During the Commissioner’s investigation COI confirmed that it did hold a subset of the gov.uk domain names, which it used for its own business purposes. However, COI considered this information to be reasonably accessible to the complainant and was therefore subject to the exemption provided by section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 21 does apply to the information held by COI and has not therefore upheld the complaint. He does nevertheless find that COI made a number of procedural breaches of the Act by its handling of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50355402

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.530517

The complainant submitted several requests to City West Homes (‘CWH’) for information about its policies and actions. The public authority withheld this information under section 14 of the Act on the grounds that the requests were vexatious. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the Council has applied section 14(1) to these requests correctly. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50368324

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.530521

The complainant requested information from Bath and North East Somerset Council (the Council) relating to the origin of a statement about the Guildhall Market in a revised list of Bath’s buildings of special interest. The Council stated that the information was not held by them. The Commissioner finds that the Council did not hold the information and does not require any further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50390764

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.530798

The complainant requested information relating to the Church Village Bypass. The Council provided some information relevant to the request but in relation to one piece of information, it initially agreed to provide the information, and subsequently stated that the information was not held. The Commissioner considers that the information requested, if held, would be environmental information and should have been considered under the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to reconsider the request under the EIR and either disclose the information requested or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with regulation 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50358299

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.530611

The complainant made a request for information relating to the requirements of a University Statute. The University provided the complainant with some information relevant to the scope of the request but withheld a piece of legal advice under section 40(2) and section 42(1). The Commissioner considers that the University was correct to withhold the legal advice falling within the scope of the request under section 42(1). He has not therefore considered the application of section 40(2).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50366014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.530700

The complainant requested information relating to numbers of pupils and teachers of different religious denominations at Parkhall Integrated College. Parkhall College refused to disclose some of that information under section 40(2) by virtue of section 40(3) (a) and (b) of the Act as it comprised sensitive personal data, disclosure of which would be unfair. The Commissioner considers that section 40(2) by virtue of 40(3)(a) and (b) was correctly engaged in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. The Commissioner also finds that Parkhall College breached section 17(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50347497

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.530603

The complainant requested from Our Lady Mother of the Saviour Catholic Primary School (the ‘public authority’) a variety of information covering staff appointments, the restructure of the public authority and copies of policies adopted by the public authority. The public authority has not provided a clear response to the requests, despite the intervention of the Commissioner. The Commissioner therefore reminds the public authority of its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’) and requires it to either respond to the request in accordance with section 1(1) of the Act and/or issue a valid refusal notice under section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50350918

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.530601

The complainant submitted a request to Hastings Borough Council (‘the Council’) for a legal opinion regarding a planning application. The public authority stated that no formal ‘report’ was held, and withheld an email summarising the legal advice received under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act. During the course of the investigation, the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld the report under the exception at regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner has concluded that the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request and in particular does not hold a formal ‘report’ of legal advice. He has also found that the Council correctly withheld the email under regulation 12(5)(b). However, the Council has breached regulation 14(3)(a) by failing to cite the specific exceptions it relied upon in withholding information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0354042

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.530560

The complainant requested from Our Lady Mother of the Saviour Catholic Primary School (the ‘public authority’) a variety of information covering staff appointments, the restructure of the public authority and copies of policies adopted by the public authority. The public authority has not provided a clear response to the requests, despite the intervention of the Commissioner. The Commissioner therefore reminds the public authority of its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’) and requires it to either respond to the request in accordance with section 1(1) of the Act and/or issue a valid refusal notice under section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50362046

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.530602

The complainant asked the Council to release a copy of the budget set for each civic hall, baths and health and fitness centre together with the detailed methodologies used for the administration and recharge mechanism with detailed data for each site. The Council responded refusing to disclose the requested information under section 43 of the Act. As the complainant remained dissatisfied, he approached the Commissioner. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council withdrew its application of section 43 of the Act and released the budgets for the various halls and health and fitness centres. It also released some information addressing the complainant’s request for data relating to the administration and recharge mechanism. The complainant continued to complain about this element of his request stating that the information released relating to the administration and recharge mechanism was not the information he requested. The Council decided to then claim a late reliance on section 12 of the Act. The Commissioner has considered the application of section 12 to the remaining element of the request and he has concluded that it does not apply in this case. He has therefore requested the Council to either releasing the outstanding information to the complainant or issue a further refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of the Act within 35 days of this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50352695

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.530509

Whether part of the hearing could be conducted in private.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT EA – 2012 – 0113 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.517897

The complainant made a number of requests for information to the Office of National Statistics about how it and subcontractors handle the personal data that is generated during the census. The ONS provided partial responses. As the complainant was not happy with them he made a complaint to the Information Commissioner. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the ONS reconsidered the requests and issued more appropriate responses to them. After further discussion, the complainant asked for the Commissioner to issue a formal decision notice about the defects in the original responses to his request. The Commissioner has determined that the ONS failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA in its original handling of the complainant’s various requests. However, the Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken as the ONS remedied those defects during his investigation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50411522

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.529108

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 057 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.434000

(Dismissed)

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 2019 – 0191 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650707

(Dismissed)

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 2019 – 0234 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650703

Allowed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 2019 – 0363 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650700

(Dismissed)

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 2019 – 0215 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650708

(Dismissed)

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 2019 – 0304 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650706

(Dismissed)

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 2019 – 0349 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650704

The complainant requested information relating to changes to the categorisation of the Clerk’s expenses. Sewards End Parish Council (the Parish Council) denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Parish Council did not hold information within the scope of the request. She therefore considers that the Parish Council complied with its obligations under section 1(1) (general right of access to information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50864575

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650466

The complainant has requested from Stevenage Borough Council (‘the Council’) information about a proposed town centre redevelopment scheme. The Council refused to comply with the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b) (request is manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to comply with the request.
EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50845333

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650469

The complainant requested from Liverpool City Council (the Council) information broadly concerning the arrangements relating to stray dogs. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its position to refuse the request for information. Therefore, the Council is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA with regard to the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the request for information as required by section 1 of the FOIA and without relying upon section 14 of the FOIA. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 14(1): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50856542

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650436

The complainant has requested information held by Warrington Borough Council (the council) relating to public objections received about its 2017/2018 draft accounts. The request under consideration follows on from two previous requests that the complainant had made for similar information. In response to all three requests, the council has applied section 12(1) of the FOIA (costs exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 16(1) of the FOIA. This is because it failed to provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance to help him to bring his request within the relevant cost limits. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the council has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA as it failed to notify the complainant that it had applied section 12(1) to the request within the statutory time period. The Commissioner requires the public authority to now provide adequate advice and assistance to help the complainant refine his request of 27 September 2019 within the cost limit.
FOI 16: Complaint upheld FOI 17(5): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50829352

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650477

The complainant requested information about the fundraising policy. The National Portrait Gallery (the Gallery) refused the request under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner is satisfied that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) are engaged. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any action.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50855306

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650452

The complainant has requested information associated with an event held by the ICO. The ICO addressed part of the complainant’s request, released some information that had been requested and withheld other information under sections 31 (law enforcement), 40 (personal data), 43 (commercial confidentiality) and 44 (prohibitions on disclosure). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the ICO withdrew its reliance on sections 31, 43 and 44. It released some of the requested information, but continued to withhold some under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The ICO can rely on section 40(2) to withhold the remaining information that the complainant has requested; it is the personal data of third persons and disclosing that information would not be lawful. The ICO breached section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) with regard to the information it disclosed on 13 November 2019, as it did not communicate this information to the complainant within 20 working days of the date of his request. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50846326

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650431

The complainant has requested stop and search data from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS refused to disclose the requested information advising that the request was vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA, on the basis of the oppressive burden in compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to find the request vexatious. No steps are required.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50854993

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650447

The complainant requested information from the Home Office about the policing of an industrial dispute in 1983. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached section 17(3) of the FOIA by failing to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable timeframe.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50888143

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650429

The complainant requested information about the programme of works associated with flood defences of the River Elwy at St Asaph. Natural Resources Wales (‘NRW’) provided some information and applied regulation 12(4)(d) to some parts of request. At the time of its internal review NRW disclosed additional information. The complainant alleged that NRW had failed to provide the specific information held relating to one part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities NRW does not hold any additional information relevant to the request other than that which it has disclosed. However, the Commissioner finds that NRW breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR in failing to provide all of the requested information within the required timescale. The Commissioner also finds that NRW breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR in failing to carry out an internal review within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
EIR 11(4): Complaint upheld EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0814598

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650454

The complainant has requested copies of any communications between the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and various current and former ministers, regarding the British Indian Ocean Territory (Citizenship) Bill 2017-19 (‘the Bill’) and the immigration status of Chagossians. The Home Office refused the request, stating that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy etc) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA to withhold the information.
FOI 35: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50844944

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650424

The complainant has requested information relating to physical assaults on staff. The Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has incorrectly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the suppressed numbers for Q7, Q8 and Q11. 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 40: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50852070

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650483

The complainant has requested information associated with the Commissioner’s decision in case reference FS50624045. The ICO has confirmed that it does not hold some of the requested information. It released some of the information it does hold and its position is that the remaining information it holds is exempt information under section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal data) and section 42(1) (legal professional privilege), with the public interest favouring maintaining the latter exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information that the ICO is withholding is exempt information under section 40(2) and 42(1) and the public interest favours maintaining the section 42(1) exemption. On the balance of probabilities, the ICO complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA with regard to the case file FS50624045. The ICO did not hold that case file at the time of the request, and so did not hold any further relevant information associated with that case file. The ICO breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1), or issue a refusal notice in respect of aspects of the request, within 20 working days of receiving the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 42: Complaint not upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50854323

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650432

The complainant has requested from London Fire Brigade, a copy of its report of a fire at his property. London Fire Brigade refused the request, on the grounds that provision of the report constituted a chargeable service under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, and therefore that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Fire Brigade was entitled to refuse the request under section 21 of the FOIA
FOI 21: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50859031

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650444

The complainant has requested Gross External Area (GEA) data in relation to 34 specified addresses. The Valuation Office Agency refused to confirm or deny holding information as it argued that to do so would breach another piece of legislation. The Commissioner’s decision is that VOA is entitled to rely upon section 44(2) of the FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
FOI 44: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50877962

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650476

The complainant requested information relating to immigration outcomes. The Home Office refused to comply with the request on the basis that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit in costs set by section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office correctly applied section 12(1) and found that there is no breach of section 16(1) (duty to provide advice and assistance) of the FOIA. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50860105

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650427

The complainant submitted two requests to Ofgem for emails received by the Chief Executive and the Director of Conduct and Enforcement during a specific time period in February 2019. Ofgem refused the requests citing section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests) as its basis for doing so. Ofgem claimed that section 14(1) applied because compliance with each request would constitute a grossly oppressive burden. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the requests. The Commissioner requires Ofgem to issue fresh responses to the requests which do not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA.
FOI 14: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50846693

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650456

The complainant has requested information about the handling of complaints. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman provided some information and pointed the complainant to additional information which was already reasonably accessible to her. The Commissioner’s decision is that the LGSCO does not hold any further information within the scope of the request, beyond that which it has either provided or has identified as being reasonably accessible. It has therefore complied with its duty under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50874291

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650437

The complainant requested information from Yarm Town Council (‘the Council’) about a CCTV system. The Council responded, but did not inform the complainant whether it held the information he had requested, nor apparently consider any information for disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council’s response failed to comply with the requirements of section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a response to the complainant which complies with the procedural requirements of the FOIA.

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50839916

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650484

The complainant has requested Special Branch files about the Partisan Coffee House in Soho from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS refused to confirm or deny whether it holds any information, citing the exemptions at sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national Security), 30(3) (criminal investigations, 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 23(5) of the FOIA is engaged. No steps are required.
FOI 23: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50866205

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650449

The complainant has requested information in relation to breast assessment services in Northern Ireland. The Department of Health (DoH) states that it does not hold recorded information within the scope of the complainant’s request and has already published all the information it holds regarding breast assessment services. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH, on the balance of probabilities, holds no further information within the scope of the complainant’s request. Therefore, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 1(1): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50849757

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650401

The complainant requested details relating to the costs of two employment tribunal cases involving teachers at Alderman Davies Church in Wales Primary School (‘the School’). The School provided some information and stated other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the School does not hold information about the costs paid in respect of one of the employment tribunal cases. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 3: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50826324

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650412

The complainant has requested information on Lilac Sky Schools Academy Trust, specifically minutes, invoices, expenses and other documents associated with the trust. The Department for Education refused the request on the basis of section 14 as it considered complying with the request would be burdensome due to the need to consider a number of exemptions including various subsections of section 31, section 36 and section 40. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied section 14(1) to refuse the request. She therefore does not require the DfE to take any steps.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50830860

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650394

The complainant requested copies of 134 emails identified by the public authority following a sampling exercise undertaken by the public authority further to the application of the cost exemption at section 12 FOIA to a request the complainant had previously submitted to the authority. Relying on section 14(1) FOIA, the public authority refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it would impose a disproportionately significant burden on the authority’s resources. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 14(1) FOIA and that it was in breach of section 10(1) FOIA.
FOI 14(1): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50852352

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650423

The complainant requested information from Cherwell District Council (‘the Council’) about council property tenants and unauthorised short-term/holiday lets. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the requests within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50882328

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650389

The complainant requested from Hampshire Police and Crime Panel (HPCP) information relating to its organisational matters, expenses, complaints management, budget and terms of reference. HPCP provided the complainant with information in relation to some parts of the request and stated that it did not hold information for the remaining parts of the information request. The Commissioner’s decision is that HPCP, on the balance of probabilities, has provided all the information it held within the scope of the remaining part of the request. The Commissioner does not require HPCP to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50810487

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650415

The complainant has requested specific information held by the council relating to Welcome to Yorkshire (WTY). The council said that it only holds information falling within the scope of the request on behalf of WTY rather than on its own behalf. It argued therefore that it does not hold any information for the purposes of its obligations under the FOI Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to find that it holds no information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50853415

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650408

The complainant requested information from Historic England (HE) relating to a planning application. HE provided some information but withheld the rest under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – adversely affect the course of justice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information held by HE is environmental in nature. However, since the requested information relates to the complainant’s own property, the Commissioner pro-actively considered regulation 5(3) of the EIR. She determined that the withheld information is the personal data of the requester and, as such, under regulation 5(3), there is no duty to disclose the information under the EIR. The Commissioner does not require HE to take any steps.
EIR 5(3): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0846299

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650421

In two series of requests, the complainant – a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of a client – has requested information associated with the relocation of a Heathrow Express depot as part of the HS2 rail project. With regard to the first series of requests, HS2 released information relevant to some of the requests, withholding some under regulation 12(5)(e)(commercial confidentiality). HS2 said it did not hold other information. Finally, HS2 relied on the exception under regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with one request (manifestly unreasonable request). It voluntarily provided the complainant with a small amount of relevant information outside of the EIR. With regard to two further requests, HS2 indicated it does not hold information falling within the scope of request 2.1 and has relied on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with request 2.2. The complainant considers: HS2 holds information in relation to five of the requests; incorrectly relied on regulation 12(4)(b) with regard to request 1.4 and offered inadequate advice and assistance with regard to that request; and incorrectly relied on regulation 12(5)(e) with regard to request 1.9. They are also dissatisfied with the length of time it took HS2 to carry out an internal review of its response to these requests. The complainant is dissatisfied with the length of time it took HS2 to provide a response to the second set requests. They are also dissatisfied with its reliance on regulation 12(4)(b) with regard to request 2.2 and the advice and assistance it provided in relation to that request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: HS2 can rely on regulation 12(4)(a) with regard to requests 1.5, 1.6, 1. 7, 1.8 and 1.10 because, on the balance of probabilities, HS2 did not hold this information at the time the complainant submitted these requests. HS2 can rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with request 1.4 and request 2.2 by virtue of cost, and the public interest favours maintaining this exception. HS2 provided adequate advice and assistance with regard to requests 1.4 and 2.2 and, as such, complied with regulation 9(1). HS2 can rely on regulation 12(5)(e) to refuse to disclose information falling within the scope of request 1.9, and the public interest favours maintaining this exception. HS2 breached regulation 11(4) as it did not provide an internal review of its response to first series of requests within 40 working days of the request for one. With regard to requests 1.5 – 1.8, 1.10, 2.1 and 2.2, HS2 . .
EIR 9: Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 11: Complaint upheld EIR 14: Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0838245

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650418

The complainant requested information from The Diocese of Westminster Academy Trust (‘the Trust’) about a Freedom of Information request and its response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50887758

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650405

The complainant requested information from The Diocese of Westminster Academy Trust (‘the Trust’) about a Freedom of Information request and its response referred in a letter to parents/carers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50886633

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650404

The complainant requested information in relation to the number of contractors discovered to have been using disguised remuneration schemes whilst engaged by the public authority. The public authority claimed that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner concluded that on the balance of probabilities the public authority does not hold the requested information.
FOI 1(1): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50822158

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650422

The complainant has requested information from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) about NHS organisations and concerns relating to NHS Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The CQC refused the request, citing the cost limit as set out in section 12(1) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50868232

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650388

The complainant requested information about crimes reported on the Parliamentary estate. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MPS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50836087

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.638667

The complainant requested copies of the Metropolitan Police Service’s contracts for the provision of cleaning services. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the MPS to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50840377

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.643236

The complainant has requested information in connection with criminal charges brought against an MP. The Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) initially confirmed it held related information but refused to provide it citing the exemptions at sections 40(2)(personal information) and 30(1)(a) (criminal investigations and proceedings) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the MPS revised its position and would neither confirm nor deny holding information citing sections 40(5) and 30(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 40(5). He requires no steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50591863

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.555908

The complainant has requested information concerning an alleged police informant from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information citing the exemptions at sections 40(5) (personal data), 23(5) (information supplied by, or concerning, certain security bodies), 30(3) (criminal investigations and proceedings) and 31(3) (law enforcement); it subsequently withdrew reliance on section 23(5). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 40(5)(a) and (b)(i) and he requires no steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50570434

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.555907

Absolute exemptions – Confidential information s.41

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 2012 – 0031 (GRC), [2012] UKFTT EA – 2012 – 0031

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.578398

The complainant made his request on 23 September 2010, which has been considered and can be seen in full in the body of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sport England has correctly stated that it does not hold the requested information which has not already been disclosed. However, in not providing one specific report until during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, Sport England did breach section 10(1) FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50366811

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.529128

The complainant requested information relating to a specified address during the 1970s. The PSNI refused to confirm or deny whether it held any relevant information, citing the exemptions at sections 23(5), 24(2), 30(3), 31(3) and 40(5) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the PSNI correctly applied the exemptions, and does not require any further steps to be taken. However the Commissioner also recorded a number of procedural breaches.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50315818

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.530609

The complainant requested copies of forms received by the Council from members of the public regarding obstructions to a specific highway. The Council released most of the information contained within the forms but withheld, under section 40(2) of the Act, the name and address of each informant and the name and address of the landowner involved. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is environmental and that the Council should have responded to the request under the provisions of the EIR. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the withheld information is personal data and that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle. As such, the Commissioner considers the information to be exempt under regulation 13 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50348938

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.530235

The complainant asked the Valuation Office Agency to provide information relating to a specific property which was owned by her. The public authority provided some information, outside the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, but withheld the remainder using the exemptions in sections 44(1) (prohibitions on disclosure) and 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 44(1) is engaged. The public authority’s handling of the request also resulted in breaches of certain procedural requirements of the Act as identified in this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50373598

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.530701

The complainant requested information relating to a police investigation. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (the PSNI) refused to comply with the request, arguing that it was vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the PSNI withdrew reliance on section 14 and issued a revised refusal notice to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI failed to comply with section 17(1) of the Act in that it failed to issue its revised refusal notice within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation in respect of the complaint submitted to him in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50393213

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.529112

The complainant asked the public authority for a copy of any correspondence relating to an information technology company called AnyVision. The public authority withheld all of the information held relying on the exemption at section 43(2) FOIA (prejudice to commercial interests) and some of the information held relying on the exemption at section 40(2) FOIA (personal data). The Commissioner concluded that the public was entitled to withhold some of the information held on the basis of section 43(2) and was entitled to rely on section 40(2) as the basis for withholding personal data.
FOI 43: Complaint partly upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-49783

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.659710

The complainant has requested from the Royal College of Art (the college) employment dates of a former employee. The college applied section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the college has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 40(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50822983

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650465

The complainant has requested information about the installer of and maintenance records for, a pair of manhole covers. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council stated that it held no information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further information within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with its Regulation 5(1) duty. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0862675

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650463

The complainant has requested information from the Police Federation of England and Wales statistics about suicides of police officers of federated rank. The Police Federation of England and Wales explained that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Police Federation of England and Wales is correct to state that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner therefore considers that it has not breached section 1 (General right of access) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Police Federation of England Wales to take any steps as a result of this decision.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50848089

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650459

The complainant has requested copies of internal correspondence exchanged with the Audit and Investigations Team in respect of his ongoing grievance. The London Borough of Brent refused to comply with the request because it considered the request to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and therefore the London Borough was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, to the request, under the FOIA, which does not rely on section 14(1).
FOI 14: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50852873

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650439

The complainant has requested information with regards to trustees. The council responded to the complainant, but the complainant did not consider the council was clear as to whether it held the information requested or not. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 1(1) of the FOIA as it has not confirmed to the complainant whether or not the information requested is held or not. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (2000). The public authority must take this step 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 1: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50858819

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650461

The complainant requested information relating to planning applications and how the council dealt with these regarding his property. The council initially provided some information but redacted other information under Regulation 12(3) (personal data). The complainant considered that further information should be held. Further information was then provided, however the complainant maintains that further information should still be held. He also complained about the redactions made under Regulation 12(3) from the documents which had been disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities, no further information is held falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. She has also decided that the council was correct to redact the identities of individuals under Regulation 12(3). The Commissioner has also decided that the council did not comply with Regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
EIR 12(3): Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0834993

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650482

The complainant has requested information relating to the number of outstanding FOI requests to West Dorset District Council (the council). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. However, the Commissioner recommends that it reviews the WDTK website and identifies any outstanding requests and respond accordingly. The council should also review the Section 46 Code of practice to ensure its new policy and procedures comply.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50838264

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650478

The complainant requested meeting minutes in which Hadleigh Town Council (the Council) resolved to take disciplinary action against a named individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50878758

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650414

The complainant has requested information from the Council in relation to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) developments. The Council directed the complainant towards some of the information which was publicly available, and refused to disclose the remainder (‘the withheld information) citing regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to the withheld information. Therefore, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
EIR 12(5)(b): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0848622

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650402

The complainant requested information from Great Yarmouth Borough Council (‘the Council’) concerning charges in relation to planning permissions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. As the Council has now provided a response to this request, the Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50876049

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650413

The complainant has requested correspondence and/or communications between Calderdale Council and specified third parties. The requested information concerns the Gentleman Jack television programme filmed at Shibden Hall which is within the Council’s area. The Council provided the complainant with some of the information it holds but refused to supply other information on the grounds that it is exempt by virtue of section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Calderdale Council has properly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA to the information it is withholding.
FOI 43: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50842045

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650387

The complainant requested police force data on the ‘use of force’ from the Home Office. It refused to provide the requested information citing section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) for part of the request and section 40(2) (personal information) for the remainder. The complainant requested an internal review in relation to the Home Office’s reliance on section 40(2) only. The Home Office subsequently disclosed some of the requested information but withheld the remainder under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the information in scope which was withheld under section 40(2) to the complainant within 35 calendar days of this notice to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 40: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50874007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650428

The complainant has requested information relating to a meeting that took place on 12 February 2014 between Councillor Sir Albert Bore and the then Secretary of State Michael Gove to discuss the ‘Trojan Horse’ letter. The Department for Education (DfE) refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 36(2)(b), 36(2)(c) and 41 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation two documents were disclosed to the complainant in response to a very similar request he made to Birmingham City Council (BCC). The third document is the notes taken by the DfE of the meeting, which the DfE maintains is still exempt from disclosure. The Commissioner has considered these notes and with the exception of the small amount of information quoted in the Confidential Annex she has decided that the DfE is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b) of the FOIA and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exemption. For the small amount of information contained in the Confidential Annex, the Commissioner requires the DfE to disclose this to the complainant.
FOI 36: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50836691

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650396

The complainant has requested the names of the lead contractors and all subcontractors listed in the tenders submitted as part of the procurement exercise for the National Roads Telecommunications Service 2 contract. Highways England Company Ltd (HE) disclosed the names of the three main bidders but refused to disclose the names of their subcontractors under the exemptions provided by section 43(2) – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the exemption provided by section 43 is engaged the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the subcontractors.
FOI 43: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50857510

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650420

The complainant has requested information held by Hastings Borough Council (the council) about the number of planning notification letters that were sent over a specific time period, and the total costs associated with this. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has now provided all the information that it holds that is relevant to the request. However, as it did not provide the complainant with the relevant information within 20 working days, it is the Commissioner’s decision that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 10(1): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50832081

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650417

The complainant has requested previous iterations of a form. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1). It considered the request to be vexatious, as it believes there is no public interest, purpose or value in the disclosure of the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) does not apply to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: revisit the request and issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA that does not rely on section 14(1). 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 14(1): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50853028

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650406