Category: Information

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Jun 2012

ICO The complainant requested correspondence exchanged between the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) regarding the MPS’ review of the Madeleine McCann case. The Home Office disclosed one document but explained that the remaining six documents that it held were exempt from disclosure on the basis of a number of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act, including section 36 (the effective conduct of public affairs exemption) and section 27 (the international relations exemption). The Commissioner is satisfied that the documents withheld by the Home Office are exempt from disclosure on the basis of these exemptions and in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining each of the exemptions.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50430043

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.529561

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Jun 2012

ICO The complainant requested information about the handling of a previous information request he had submitted to the Home Office. The previous request had resulted in full disclosure but had also met with a delay of two months which the complainant was dissatisfied with. The Home Office refused to comply with the request in this case on the grounds that it was vexatious. The Information Commissioner’s (the Commissioner’s) decision is that the Home Office was correct to refuse to comply with the request on the basis that section 14(1) applied. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0150 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50434129

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.529563

Cabinet Office (Decision Notice) FS50085720: ICO 22 Dec 2009

ICO The complainant asked the public authority for a copy of the Cabinet Office’s Manual of Protective Security. The public authority provided some sections of the Manual but withheld other parts, citing the exemptions contained in sections 21(1), 23(1), 24(1), 27(1)(a), 31 and 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). After the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority released some further information. The Commissioner decided that the public interest test under section 24(1) of the Act required that a small amount of the information which the public authority continued to withhold should be disclosed. He also decided that information for which section 21(1) had been claimed was not reasonably accessible to the applicant and should specifically be disclosed. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0030 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50085720

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.532381

East of England Ambulance Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Nov 2013

ICO The complainant requested copies of management documents relating to concerns about the ambulance service’s planned rota review.The Commissioner’s decision is that by withholding the information under s41(1) of the FOIA the East of England Ambulance Trust (the trust) did not deal with the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under section 41(1) within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50497760

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.528871

Dyfed Powys Police (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Nov 2013

ICO The complainant requested all emails held by Dyfed-Powys Police that made reference to a particular individual from January 2008. Dyfed-Powys Police stated that it would exceed the cost limit to confirm whether or not it holds the requested information (section 12(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Dyfed-Powys Police has provided a reasonable estimate of the costs associated with complying with the request and has therefore correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to the request. However, the Commissioner finds that Dyfed-Powys Police breached section 16(1) of the FOIA in that it did not provide advice and assistance to the complainant as to how his request could have been refined to bring it within the cost limit. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take reasonable steps to advise and assist the complainant with a view to refining the request to bring it within the cost limit.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

Judges:

Anne Jones

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498552

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.528870

East Lindsey District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Oct 2009

ICO The complainant requested information about the owners of a private road adjoining his neighbour’s property in order to be able to contact the owners. The Council responded saying that the information was not held. The Commissioner upholds the refusal under regulation 12(4)(a). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2009/0094 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FER0228185

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.532232

Invest Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Jul 2006

ICO The complainant requested information regarding the sale of shares in Invest NI. Some information was provided, but some was withheld on the grounds that the information was exempt under sections 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 43 (prejudice to commercial interests). With respect to both exemptions the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is that the section 36 exemption is engaged but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information, that the section 43 exemption is not engaged, and that the refusal notice issued by Invest NI did not comply with the requirements of section 17. Invest NI did not, therefore, deal with the request made in accordance with Part 1 of the Act in that it has failed to comply with its obligations under section 1 as they did not fulfil the duty to confirm or deny. However, the information which was withheld was disclosed in March 2006 as part of Invest NI’s annual accounts and a copy of the information was provided to the complainant at this time, and so no further action is required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50073979

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.533507

Department of The Environment Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Mar 2006

ICO On 12 March 2005 the complainant requested information related to the granting of planning permission to store asbestos at Crosshill Quarry. The information was provided on 9 May 2005, outside the 20 working day time limit, and so the commissioner has judged the Department to be in breach of section 10 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50073127

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.533376

Department for Culture Media and Sport (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Dec 2009

ICO The complainant requested information from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) concerning the takeover of Chelsea Football Club in 2003. DCMS refused to release this information because in the reasoned opinion of a qualified person it was exempt under section 36(2)(b) of the Act. Also, it argued that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The complainant requested an internal review and following the review DCMS maintained its original decision. While the complaint was waiting to be investigated and following a decision by the Commissioner in another DCMS case, the department released some of the previously withheld information while maintaining that the remaining information was exempt and disclosure was not in the public interest. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS correctly applied section 36(2)(b) to the withheld information. However, in respect of some of the information, he believes the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information. The public authority has therefore breached section 1(1)(b) in failing to disclose the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50186903

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.532401

Norwich City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Nov 2010

ICO The complainant made two connected requests a few days apart, requesting information about the traffic aspects of a planning consent application within a consultants’ report which Norwich City Council (Norwich) had once held. Norwich refused the request on the grounds that the information was not held. The Information Commissioner decided that the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs) applied. He decided that Norwich had breached Regulation 2(1)(c) in not recognising that the EIRs applied but that the information requested was not held and that the request should have been refused relying on the exception in Regulation 12(4)(a). In respect of the second request the Commissioner decided that Norwich had refused the request within the time allowed by Regulation 14(2). The time taken by Norwich to complete its review of its refusal to provide the information requested fell well within the Regulation 11(4) time limit. The Commissioner decided that Norwich had breached Regulation 14(2) in its late refusal of the first request and that Norwich should have refused the request under the exception at Regulation 12(4)(a).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 2.1 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50305901

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.531797

Milton Keynes Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Nov 2010

ICO On 10 November 2008 the complainant requested that Milton Keynes Council should make all the documentation it held which related to Petsoe Wind Farm available for inspection. The council’s response to the request was piecemeal and protracted. Initially, some information was provided and some refused under section 21 and section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the complainant was invited to inspect the council’s planning files. However, the complainant argued that the council was deliberately withholding information. After the Commissioner’s intervention, the council agreed to consider the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. It provided further information and after some negotiation, it was agreed that the complainant would be satisfied with specific emails from the accounts of individuals which the council should have provided at the time the request was made. The Commissioner is satisfied that the council has provided those requested emails which it now holds. However, the Commissioner finds that the council breached regulation 5(1), 5(2), 11(3)(a) and (b), 11(4) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FER0234572

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 21 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.531791

Astley Abbots Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Mar 2006

ICO Believing that the Council had organised a meeting to discuss plans to convert his public house into a residential property, the complainant requested information related to this meeting. The Council stated that it had not organised the meeting in question and so did not hold any information about it. On the basis of the information available to him, the Commissioner has accepted the representations of the Council. However, the Commissioner did conclude that a breach of the Act had occurred as the Council failed to respond to the information request within 20 working days. The Infomation Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50082264

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.533365

Aberdare Girls School (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Dec 2010

ICO The complainant requested information regarding the legal costs and legal advice given to the Governing Body in relation to a Judicial Review it had defended concerning the exclusion of a pupil for refusing to remove a religious bangle. The Governing Body refused the request citing sections 12, 14, 21, 31, 32, 41, and 42 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and finds that some of the requested information is not held and that some of the information is exempt under section 42 of the Act. However, the Commissioner also finds that sections 12, 14, 21, 31, 32 and 41 are not engaged and orders the Governing Body to take appropriate steps. The Commissioner also recorded a significant number of procedural breaches of the Act and was particularly concerned with the Governing Body’s lack of co-operation with his investigation. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0102 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50259667

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.531810

Department for Transport Air Accidents Investigation Branch (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Feb 2006

The complainant requested access to the registration details of five aircraft impounded on the night of 21 December 1988, the names of the airlines involved, the reason for the grounding of these aircrafts and the authority that implemented the action. The CAA informed the complainant that they did not hold this information but the complainant maintained that it did exist. Having investigated this matter the ICO is satisfied that the CAA does not hold the information requested.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50081566

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.533352

Northern Ireland Legal Service Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Mar 2006

ICO On 27 May 2005 the complainant requested information relating to legal aid in Northern Ireland, but the information was not provided and the complainant approached the Commissioner on 28 September 2005. The Commissioner contacted the NILSC, and following correspondence the information was provided to the complainant on 25 November 2005. The Commissioner has therefore found that the public authority had breached Section 10 of the Act in exceeding the 20 day time limit.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50090013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.533383

Brent Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Feb 2006

ICO The complainant requested copies of any documentation which resulted from an earlier complaint made to LBB about a planning issue. The public authority failed to respond within 20 working days and despite a follow up request did not provide a response until the Commissioner intervened. Therefore LBB failed to meet their obligations under the Act, but as LBB have now responded no further action is required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50074158

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.533350

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Decision Notice) FS50314794: ICO 14 Mar 2011

The complainant requested documents held by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) which are authored or owned by a named individual and contain the word Iraq. The FCO released five documents in redacted form and withheld one in full, citing the exemptions in sections 27 (international relations), 40 (personal information) and 43 (commercial interests). Having investigated, the Commissioner has decided that the information withheld under section 43 was not within the scope of the request. He also found that the information to which sections 27 and 40 was applied was correctly withheld. However, he identified a series of procedural shortcomings on the part of the public authority relating to delay and failure adequately to specify exemptions. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50314794

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.530329

Haringey London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Mar 2011

The complainant submitted a request to Haringey Council (‘the Council’) for information from environmental records held on a property in London. The Council failed to respond to this request within 20 working days. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and agreed to provide the requested information for inspection free of charge. The Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) by failing to make the requested information that it held available within the statutory time for compliance. He does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0355942

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.530334

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Mar 2011

The complainant requested information relating to the correspondence between the then Home Secretary and Professor Nutt, Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, regarding the Professor’s resignation. The Home Office advised the complainant where some of the requested information could be found in the public domain. With respect to the remainder, it confirmed it held the requested information, but refused to provide it on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure by virtue of sections 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 42 (legal professional privilege). After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that the information had been correctly withheld. However, he identified a series of procedural shortcomings on the part of the public authority.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50305665

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.530339

Department for Education (Decision Notice) FS50491842: ICO 9 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested a copy of the draft national curriculum for history that had been shared with a named government adviser in advance of a formal proposal for changes to the national curriculum being published as part of a consultation exercise. The Department for Education (DfE) refused the request on the basis that the information was exempt under section 35(1)(a) ‘information relating to the development or formulation of government policy and the public interest favoured maintaining that exemption. During the Commissioner’s investigation the DfE applied section 36 ‘prejudice to the conduct of public affairs, in the alternative. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE was correct to refuse the request under section 35(1)(a). It follows that he has not gone on to consider the application of section 36.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50491842

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.528969

Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decision Notice) FER0486845: ICO 3 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested all the communications related to a letter Ed Davey, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), sent to the Prime Minister asking him to remove responsibility for renewable energy from one of his ministers, together with the legal advice that underpinned that request. He also requested other communications relating to renewable energy and between Ed Davey, his Minister, the Treasury and the Prime Minister. The DECC withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(e) ‘internal communications and regulation 13’ personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that DECC correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) to the information. However in respect of some of the information he finds the public interest favours disclosing those communications. The commissioner is satisfied that the personal data of junior civil servants can be withheld under regulation 13, however he also finds that information identifying the department which one official worked for should be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the letter requested in part one of the request; disclose some of the information falling within the third and fourth parts of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Partly Upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0486845

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.528976

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Mar 2011

The complainant requested information from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) relating to the European Arrest Warrant and British citizens serving criminal sentences in foreign jails. The FCO refused to identify the requests as valid requests for recorded information under the Freedom of Information Act and also failed to respond to the complainant under ‘normal course of business’. The Commissioner has investigated and finds that the requests should be dealt with under the provisions of the Act, and now requires the FCO to respond to the complainant confirming or denying whether information is held. If it is the case that information is held the FCO should either disclose the information to the complainant or issue a valid refusal notice under section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50344876

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.530330

Dr Rosemary Symon (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Feb 2013

The complainant has requested information from the Ramsbury and Wanborough Surgery concerning the surgery and its expenditure for 2009-2011. The Practice initially provided some information but argued the remainder was commercially sensitive. During the course of the investigation it explained that it does not hold total GP pay, dispensary income and profit figures for the purposes of the FOIA as it cannot separate the NHS information requested from the combined NHS and private information that it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Practice does hold total GP pay, dispensary income and profit figures for the purposes of the FOIA. However he considers this information to be exempt under section 43(2) of the FOIA. He therefore does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50420107

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.527961

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Mar 2011

The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the current draft of the proposed Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order submitted to it by the Environment Agency. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs initially refused to disclose the information on the grounds that the wording for the Order had not been finalised and a number of exemptions were applied. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs disclosed a copy of the Draft Order requested by the complainant. Accordingly, as the requested information has now been disclosed to the complainant the Commissioner has not considered whether the exemptions were correctly cited. However, the Commissioner has noted that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ handling of the request resulted in a procedural breach of section 10(1) of the Act in that it failed to respond to the information request promptly and in any event within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50287572

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.530308

Department for Education (Decision Notice) FS50504456: ICO 9 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to the Barnfield Fernwood Free School Project. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education (DfE) has correctly applied section 12(1) to the request dated 15 April 2013, and correctly applied section 36(2) (b) (ii) to the further request dated 13 May 2013. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50504456

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.528971

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Mar 2011

The complainant requested, from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), prosecution paperwork and all witness statements for a particular case. The CPS confirmed it held the requested information but refused to provide it on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure by virtue of sections 30 (investigations and proceedings), 40(2) (personal information) and 42 (legal professional privilege). The complainant subsequently narrowed the scope of his request to specific witness statements only. As the Commissioner has decided that the information requested is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the Act he has not considered the other exemptions. He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50350464

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.530299

Sandown Town Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Sep 2013

IPO The complainant has requested details of the Town Clerk’s salary. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sandown Town Council has correctly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA (although it did not inform the complainant of the specific exemption being relied upon). He does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50500311

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.528706

Commission for Local Administration In England (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Mar 2011

The complainant made a request to the public authority for information regarding a complaint he had previously made against a local authority. The public authority refused the request under section 44 of the Act which provides for an exemption from the right to know where disclosure is prohibited under any other enactment. It said that the relevant statutory prohibition was section 32(2) of the Local Government Act 1974. The Commissioner has found that section 44 was correctly applied; he requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50353620

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.530295

Department for Work and Pensions (Decision Notice) FS50488018: ICO 10 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested a list of the fields in an ESA85 Medical Report completed by an Atos Healthcare professional that are automatically populated or overwritten by the Logical Integrated Medical Assessment (LiMA) system. The Department for Work and Pension (DWP)’s position is that some parts of the requested information are not held, other parts have already been provided, and that any relevant technical information is exempt information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that any relevant information held is covered by section 43(2) of FOIA. He does not therefore require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50488018

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.528974

Metropolitan Police Service (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Mar 2011

The complainant requested information from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) about people convicted under the refusal to decrypt legislation. The MPS ultimately confirmed it held information within the scope of the request but withheld it citing the exemptions in sections 40(2) (personal information) and 30(1) (investigations and proceedings). It also neither confirmed nor denied that it held any other relevant information citing the exemptions in sections 23(5) (information supplied by or relating to bodies dealing with security matters) and 24(2) (national security). The Commissioner focussed his investigation on the personal information exemption. He found that the exemption at section 40(2) is engaged and requires no steps to be taken. However, the Commissioner identified a series of procedural shortcomings on the part of the public authority relating to delay (section 10) and failure to explain application of exemptions (section 17).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50295253

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.530358

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Sep 2013

The complainant requested information about the number of licensed taxi drivers with serious criminal convictions for violence from Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. The council 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) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly applied section 12(1). Additionally, the Commissioner found there to be no breach of section 16(1), as there were no means by which the request could reasonably be refined. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50493181

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 12(1) 16(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.528705

Lambeth London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Oct 2013

The complainant requested information about the hire of a specified venue. The London Borough of Lambeth provided some information in response to the request, but the complainant believed that further information was held. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds more information relevant to this request. He is not satisfied, again on the balance of probabilities, that the only location of information falling within the scope of the request would be held on the store manager’s computer. He also finds that information on previous hires is within the scope of the request. In addition, by failing to provide its response within 20 working days the Council has breached section 10 of FOIA. The Information Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response in relation to the information held on previous hires and to conduct a wider search for any information held about the hire of the hall.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50505852

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.528776

Metropolitan Police Service (Decision Notice) FS50316551: ICO 16 Mar 2011

The complainant made two requests for information to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) concerning its staffing arrangements for three separate days, during which the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) were taking strike action. The MPS aggregated the two requests and cited section 12(1) of the Act, stating that the cost of compliance with the requests would exceed the appropriate limit under the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS correctly cited section 12(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50316551

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.530359

Commission v Netherlands: ECJ 24 Jun 2004

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector – Articles 6 and 9 of Directive 97/66/EC – Requirement for specific statement of grounds of complaint in the reasoned opinion

Citations:

C-350/02, [2004] EUECJ C-350/02

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 97/66/EC

European, Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198657

Clarkson v Information Commissioner (The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009): FTTGRC 1 Feb 2013

Request properly rejected as for material held for journalistic purposes. Struck out.

Judges:

NJ Warren

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT EA – 2012 – 0258 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Media

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.517850