ICO The complainant requested information from the National Archives relating to the 1911 census schedule. The National Archives withheld the requested information, relying on the exemption under section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In this case, the Commissioner’s decision is that the National Archives wrongly claimed section 41 in relation to the requested information and he therefore upholds the complaint. The Commissioner requires the National Archives to disclose the requested information to the complainant. The Commissioner stresses that that this Decision must be confined to the circumstances relating to the information requested in this case. This is not – and cannot be – a decision that the entirety of the 1911 census must now be disclosed. Nor does it create any precedent in the sense that all other requests for specific information within the 1911 or other census schedules must succeed. This Decision concludes with more general guidance about situations where section 41 of the Act may apply in this context. Each request for 1911 census information will need to be treated separately on its merits.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50101391

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.533623

ICO The complainant requested information about the basis of statistic quoted in the public authority’s 2005 Annual Report. The request was refused on the grounds of exceeding the cost limit, so the complainant modified his request and this was again refused on cost grounds. The Commissioner approached the public authority and is satisfied that they correctly estimated that the cost of complying with the complainant’s requests would exceed the appropriate limit.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50125936

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.533605

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information about parking fines issued over a six month period. The public authority refused to answer the complainant’s request on the grounds that to provide the information would exceed the cost limit. The Commissioner investigated this claim and accepts that the public authority could not have answered the request within the cost limit. However, the Commissioner established that the public authority failed to provide the complainant with any advice and assistance. The also Commissioner established that the complainant’s request had two separate elements and that it would have been possible for the Council to answer the first part of the request within the cost limit. The Commissioner considers that if the Council had provided advice and assistance to the complainant this should have led the Council to fulfil part one of the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council fulfilled part one of the request. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50105724

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.533626

ICO The complainant originally made a request to the Craigavon and Banbridge Trust on 21st January 2005 for copy records in relation to the complainant’s overseas adoption application. That public authority provided the complainant with that information held by it and transferred part of the request relating to the information held by the Southern Area Adoption Panel to the Chairman of the said panel at Newry and Mourne Health and Social Services Trust. The Trust did not supply the information requested by the complainant in its entirety until 4th November 2006. The Commissioner finds that the Trust did not deal with the request in accordance with the requirements of Part I of the Act because it considerably exceeded the time for compliance, as set out in Section 10 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50126178

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.533607

ICO The complainant was the subject of a civil proceedings order issued under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The complainant asked the public authority for a letter about him which was sent by the judges to the Attorney General’s Office after his court case that initiated this order. The public authority did not initially issue a valid refusal notice and did not address his request correctly. The complainant therefore contacted the Commissioner at this point to complain about the public authority’s failure to provide an adequate response. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority informed the complainant that it did not need to confirm or deny that the information was held and that it was exempt from disclosure under section 32(1)(c) of the Act (Court Records). The complainant contacted the Commissioner again to complain about one specific element of his request. The Commissioner has concluded that if this information was held it would be the personal information of the complainant and therefore exempt under section 40(1) of the Act (Personal Data). The public authority was therefore not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information by virtue of section 40(5)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner considers that the public authority should have treated the request as a subject access request under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The Commissioner has also decided that the public authority breached section 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), 17(1)(c) and 17(7) of the Act in relation to the manner in which it initially handled both his requests.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50155868

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.531978

ICO The complainant asked the public authority (‘the Council’) for information which it held about the purchase of land owned by the Council and the complainant. The council provided to the complainant some of the requested information but withheld other information, citing the exemptions contained in sections 41 and 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner has decided that sections 41 and 42 are engaged in this case and that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner finds that the Council failed to comply with section 17 of the Act as it did not inform the complainant of his right to seek a review of the Council’s decision or to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. However, in other respects, the Commissioner finds that the Council dealt with the request in accordance with Part 1 of the Act and does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50071319

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.533612

ICO The complainant requested that the public authority, under the Freedom of Information Act, provide information regarding the council tax banding of his property. Although it provided certain information the Commissioner finds that it did not do so in accordance with its obligations under the Act and in particular is in breach of sections 1 and 10.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50123625

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.533628

ICO Initially the complainant made a request to the Royal Surrey County Hospital (RSCH) under the Access to Health Records Act 1990 (AHRA) for information relating to her late husband’s treatment whilst he was a patient in the hospital. She then made a separate request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for four particular pieces of information that she maintained the public authority had withheld when it had responded to her request under the AHRA. The public authority informed the complainant that it would not be providing the four pieces of information she had requested under Section 1 of the Act as the information did not exist. Having investigated the matter and examined the information in question the Commissioner has decided that in relation to three of the four pieces of information the public authority has dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with the requirements of Part I of the Act. The public authority eventually located the fourth piece of information and provided a copy of this to the complainant. The Commissioner has decided that this information was exempt under section 21 of the Act because it was accessible to the complainant under the AHRA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50063716

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.533625

ICO The complainant requested the monitoring returns of NHS Foundation Trusts provided to the public authority between 2004 and 2005 as part of its functions as the regulator of NHS foundation trusts. The authority refused to disclose the information on the grounds that the exemptions in section 33(1) (b) (audit functions), section 43 (commercial interests), section 22 (information intended for future publication) and section 21 (information available by other means) were applicable to the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that information provided to the authority as part of its 2004 returns does not fall within the exemptions applied and that the information should therefore be disclosed to the complainant. As regards the returns from 2005, the Commissioner’s decision is that Monitor was able to apply the exemptions in sections 33 and 43 of the Act at the time that the request was received. However, the annual reports and accounts of both the public authority and the trusts have been published since the complaint was made to the Commissioner. He has therefore decided that this information should also now be disclosed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 22 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 33 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50115610

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.533622

ICO The complainant requested information about the original estimates, tenders and costings for the building of an educational classroom in the Botanical Gardens, Singleton Park, Swansea. The public authority provided some information, but the complainant has alleged that he has not received all of the information requested. The public authority has not been able to demonstrate to the Commissioner that it has responded to all parts of the request, and therefore the Commissioner finds that the public authority has breached its duties under sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the outstanding information or issue a valid refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50113427

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.533615

ICO The complainant asked the Charity Commission for all its documents relating to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The Charity Commission provided some documents but withheld a bank statement which showed the name of an individual who had donated money to the GWPF. It argued that this information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) and section 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner finds that the Charity Commission was correct to apply section 40(2) to this bank statement and has not considered its application of section 41(1). Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0177 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50353245

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.530518

ICO The complainant requested copies of letters supporting the imposition of a tree preservation order which was imposed upon his land by Salisbury District Council. The council provided the complainant with unedited copies of the letters where the writers had consented to disclosure of their identity. Where the writers had not consented their personal information was redacted before copies of the letters were provided. The Council advised the complainant that the redacted information had been withheld under Section 40(2) of the Act. Having investigated, the Commissioner is satisfied that the information was appropriately withheld although the Environmental Information Regulations should have been applied and the information withheld under Regulation 13.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FER0085943

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.533609

ICO The complainant made a request for information by to Her Majesty’s Treasury for information fed into the macroeconomic model used to forecast the performance of the UK economy. The information was withheld under sections 29 (economic interests of the UK) and 35 (formulation of government policy). The Commissioner is satisfied that these exemptions were correctly applied.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 29 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50105898

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.533603

ICO The complainant asked Stafford Borough Council for a copy of legal advice supplied to it by its legal adviser in connection with a planning dispute. The request was declined by the council on the basis that the information was subject to legal professional privilege and was therefore exempt under section 42 of the Act. After requesting a copy of the withheld information and further information about the refusal, the Commissioner concluded that although the request should have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, the claim that the information was subject to legal professional privilege nevertheless applied and the information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of regulation 12(5)(b). The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FER0078604

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Information Regulations 2004 12(5)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.533610

ICO The complainant requested information related to the number of prosecutions that came about as a result of a particular safety camera. The Police withheld this information under sections 31 and 38. After consideration of whether these exemptions were applied correctly, including consideration of the public interest, the Commissioner has upheld the decision of the public authority to withhold this information. However, the Commissioner does find that section 17 was breached when the public authority failed to issue an adequate refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50099068

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.533614

The complainant requested the name and address of an individual who had made a complaint that was to be considered by the Council’s planning enforcement team. The public authority applied sections 30(2)(a)(iii) and 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act to withhold the information. The Commissioner has determined that the information was actually environmental information and should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner as Regulator of the DPA has used his discretion to apply regulation 13 on the public authority’s behalf. He has found that it would apply to this request and that the information can be withheld. He has, however, found procedural breaches of regulations 14(3)(a), 14(3)(b), 14(5)(a) and 14(5)(b). He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50257908

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.532257

The complainant has requested information relating to concerns about histopathology/pathology breast care services. North Bristol NHS Trust (the Trust) refused to comply with the request as it considers it is vexatious under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 14 FOIA in this case and it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50474252

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.528375

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the proposal to extend Poole Quay Boat Haven. The Commissioner’s decision is that Poole Harbour Commissioners has incorrectly applied the exception where disclosure would have an adverse effect upon the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest (regulation 12(5)(e)). The Commissioner has also decided, on the balance of probabilities, that no further information is held. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the withheld information detailed in paragraph 25 of this decision notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Uphel

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0484216

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.528386

The complainant has requested all correspondence regarding the development of Swallow Barn in Lowca from Copeland Borough Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to reply to the request within 20 working days. As the council responded to the request during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, he does not require any steps to be taken by the council.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0479766

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.528331

The complainant requested information concerning the amount of compensation and legal fees paid by Swindon College to one of its former employees following his successful legal claim against it in the High Court. The Commissioner’s decision is that Swindon College has correctly engaged section 40(2) of the FOIA in respect of the information requested. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50467604

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.528311

ICO The complainant has requested information in relation to a unilateral undertaking in respect of a specific property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council incorrectly applied the exemption for information provided in confidence but correctly applied the exemption for personal information. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50473821

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.528394

ICO The complainant requested information relating to mobile telephones issued to staff by the Department of the Environment. The Department provided some information to the complainant and withheld further information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Department also claimed that part 6 of the request was not a valid request under section 8(1)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was entitled to rely on section 40(2) in relation to the withheld information. However the Commissioner finds that part 6 of the request was valid and requires the Department to provide a response to it in accordance with the provisions of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50489253

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.528655

Decision Notice The complainant requested information about Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) fleet vehicles. VOSA relied on sections 31(1)(g), 31(2)(a)-(d) and 38(1) in respect of the withheld information. The Commissioner finds that VOSA was correct to rely on sections 31(1)(g) and 31(2(a)-(d) for some of the information and that the public interest favoured withholding it. The Commissioner also finds that VOSA was incorrect to rely on the cited exemptions for the remainder of the information, in breach of its procedural obligations. The Commissioner requires VOSA to disclose the identified information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50309983

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.530488

The complainant requested information relating to the provision of goods and services to the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) by a named company. The Council provided some information, cited the section 43 exemption (commercial interests) in respect of other information it holds that falls within the scope of the request, and denied holding the remainder. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council confirmed that it had located additional information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further relevant information. However, the Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the information marked ‘A’ and ‘B’ in the Council’s correspondence with the Commissioner of 5 April 2013; and disclose to the complainant the information marked 1-4 in the Council’s correspondence with the Commissioner of 11 July 2013.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50472514

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.528568

The complainant has requested a copy of a letter sent by Brighton and Hove City Council to its legal counsel requesting his opinion. The Commissioner’s decision is that Brighton and Hove City Council correctly has correctly withheld the information in reliance of Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50492340

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.528731

The complainant made a request to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for information relating to the issue of fraudulently or dishonestly acquiring vehicles VAT-free through the disability scheme. HMRC provided some of the requested information but refused to provide all of the requested information. It explained that some of the information requested was exempt from disclosure under section 44(1)(a) and section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In relation to its application of the exemption contained at section 44(1)(a) of the Act, HMRC cited section 18(1) with section 23(1)(b) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 as the relevant statutory bar on disclosure. The Commissioner considers that the section 44(1)(a) exemption was correctly engaged in this case. The Commissioner did not go on to consider HMRC’s application of the section 40(2) exemption.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50356172

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.530416

ICO The ICO has served an enforcement notice on Glasgow City Council following a serious breach of the Data Protection Act that led to the loss of two unencrypted laptops, one of which contained the personal information of 20,143 people.

Citations:

[2013] UKICO 2013-22

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.528353

ICO The complainant requested information from the Victoria and Albert Museum (the ‘VandA’) relating to its dealings with the artist Madonna and her representatives regarding a film which Madonna is directing. He also requested any information it held regarding Madonna’s management company, Live Nation, and the VandA regarding a potential Madonna exhibition at the VandA. The VandA said that the information relating to the first request was exempt under section 40 (personal information). As regards the second request it applied section 43 (commercial interests) and section 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that all three exemptions are applicable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the VandA breached section 17(1)(b) in that it did not claim the exemption in section 40(5)(b)(i) when responding to part 4 of the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50328169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.530489

The complainant has requested information on the use of payment arrangements to personal service companies by BBC Look North. The BBC explained that the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position. Section 10 of the FOIA provides that a public authority should respond to a request for information within 20 working days. The Commissioner has found a breach in this case because the public authority did not respond within 20 working days to the second question in the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.528725

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to health and safety documents in relation to a specific company. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health and Safety Executive does not hold any 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.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50477194

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.528358

The complainant requested the price offered by the commercial agents who quoted for their professional services in respect of the marketing and sale of a site for development. East Devon District Council withheld the information citing the section 43 exemption (commercial interests). The Commissioner has investigated and has found that the information was correctly withheld. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50483020

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.528450

ICO The complainant requested information concerning vacancies for Justices of the Supreme Court and the filling of such vacancies. The public authority initially disclosed some information, but withheld other information, citing the exemptions provided by the following sections of the Act: 40(2) (personal information), 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibitions to disclosure), 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), 36(2)(b) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice and the free and frank exchange of views) and 36(2)(c) (other prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). It later amended its stance and stated that the information in relation to which sections 36(2)(b) and (c), 40(2) and 44(1)(a) were cited was not held by it for the purposes of the Act. The Commissioner notes that the public authority stated correctly during his investigation that this information was not held by it for the purposes of the Act, however, as when it was dealing with the request it confirmed that it did hold the information the Commissioner finds that it breached section 1(1)(a). In relation to section 35(1)(a), the Commissioner finds that this was cited correctly for some information, but that the remainder of this information should be disclosed. The Commissioner has also found that the public authority breached sections 1(1)(b), 10(1) and 17(1)(b) through its handling of the request.

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50313758

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.530393

ICO The request was for copies of minutes of meetings, agendas and all correspondence prepared for or connected with meetings since January 2004 between the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD), the CBI and the Airbus consortium relating to ECGD’s revised bribery and corruption procedures. A large bundle of the requested information was made publicly available on the ECGD’s website on the same day as it responded to the complainant’s request. The ECGD refused to provide the remainder of the information because it argued that some of the withheld information related to the formulation and development of government policy (section 35) and that disclosure of some of the information would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36). It also cited section 42 (legal professional privilege) and section 23 (security bodies) as grounds for withholding some of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public interest lies in the release of some of the withheld information to which section 35 was applied. However he decided the ECGD had correctly applied section 36 to some of the withheld information and that the public interest lies in withholding the information. The Commissioner also accepts that section 23 of the Act has been correctly applied to some of the information. However he has decided that section 43 has not been correctly applied to some of the information. The Commissioner also did not accept the ECGD’s argument that the production of a schedule of documents constituted the creation of new information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50079488

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.533600

Allowed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 2019 – 0275 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.656630

Allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 2018 – 0154 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.634539

The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) for information about meetings between the Secretary of State and Prince of Wales. BEIS confirmed that one meeting had taken place during the time period of the request and provided the complainant with some briefing material related to this meeting. However, it sought to withhold further briefing material on the basis of either section 37(1)(aa) (communications with or relating to the heir to the Throne) of FOIA or regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR. The Commissioner has concluded that section 37(1)(aa) has been applied correctly. However, she has also concluded that although some of the withheld information falls within the scope of the exception provided by regulation 12(4)(e) the public interest favours disclosing this information.
EIR 12(4)(e): Complaint upheld FOI 37: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50704919

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.628387

The complainant has requested information concerning the cost benefit analysis of advanced (energy) meters carried out by the former Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (now the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy). BEIS refused the original request in its entirely and a subsequent refined request in part under Section 12 (costs limit of the FOIA and/or Regulation 12(4)(b)(manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS correctly refused both requests as manifestly unreasonable and that the public interest balance favours maintaining the exception in both cases. However, the Commissioner has found that BEIS breached Regulations 5(2) and 11(4) in their handling of the requests.
EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0692284

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.628273

The complainant has requested information relating to a building reinstatement survey commissioned by the London Borough of Islington (the Council). The Council disclosed the majority of the information but withheld parts of a contract under section 43(2) (commercial interests) and an address column of a survey report under section 40(2) (third party personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly relied on section 40(2) but not section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner therefore requires the Council to disclose the information to which section 43(2) has been applied to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50422123

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.527835

The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the London Borough of Islington (‘the Council’). The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that it was commercially sensitive. The Commissioner has therefore considered whether the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) could be applied to the information in question. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions. In addition, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 17 of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with an adequate refusal notice.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50155410

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.532538

The complainant requested information held by Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (the council) in relation to the settlement of employment tribunal proceedings brought by six former council employees under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 who were dismissed for whistle blowing. In particular, he asked for the total amount paid to the former employees. The council has refused to provide this information as it believes it is exempt under section 40(2) of the Act in that it constitutes the personal data of the former employees and processing of it would be unfair and unlawful under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). Also the council has cited section 41 on the basis that the information was provided in confidence. The Commissioner has decided that neither sections 40(2) or 41 are engaged and accordingly has ordered that the withheld information be disclosed in 35 days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50178553

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.532260

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Islington (the council) relating to service charges for particular properties as far back as records would allow. The council withheld the information under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 12. He requires no steps to be taken. However, the Commissioner finds that the public authority failed to comply with section 17(5) of the FOIA in that it did not cite section 12(1) within 20 working days of receipt of the request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50423229

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.529493

The complainant submitted a request to Wandsworth Council (the Council) for a copy of a legal opinion obtained by the Council regarding whether it is lawful for certain events to be held in Battersea Park. The Council withheld this information under the exemption at section 42(1) of the Act, on the grounds that it was subject to legal professional privilege. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the Council has applied the exemption at section 42(1) correctly, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Consequently, he does not require the Council to take any further action. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0075 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50326544

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.530262

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT EA – 2011 – 0161 (GRC

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.451761

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 105 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.447304

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 055 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.434550

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 077 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.434584

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 066 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.434560

Monthly performance statistics for prisoner escort and court custody services contract

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 053 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.434552

Citations:

[2010] UKIT 2010 – 0094

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.427144

The complainant requested from the Department of Health and Social Care (‘DHSC’) information relating to ‘Exercise Cygnus’. By the date of this notice, the DHSC had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Having confirmed that information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information or issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA. The DHSC 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 17(3): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO IC-66027-S2X1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.656192

The complainant requested information from the Home Office about trafficking victims. The Home Office has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO IC-49754-L4D9

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.656199

The complainant has requested a document from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) on the analysis of the impact of Brexit on the NHS which the complainant believed was the source of a leak in April 2017. The DHSC refused to either confirm or deny if this document was held by virtue of the exclusion at section 35(3) of the FOIA as to do so would reveal information on the development of formulation of government policy (section 35(1)(a)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC was correct to neither confirm nor deny if this information was held and the public interest in this case supports this position. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken by the DHSC. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0035 under appeal.
FOI 35: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50750167

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.634852

The complainant has made a request for information relating to the closure of beds at Rothbury Community Hospital. Despite the Intervention of the Commissioner, the Department of Health and Social Care (the DHSC) has not provided a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to provide the complainant with a full response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50798285

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.635065

The complainant requested information on the funding for the NHS Estates and Facilities guidance programme. The Department of Health and Social Care (the DH) confirmed that it did not hold any further information. The complainant considered that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DH does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require the DH to take any steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50726275

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.628502

The complainant has requested information relating to Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). London Borough of Bromley (the Council) originally withheld this information under section 36 but disclosed the information during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has therefore breached section 10 of the Act as it failed to provide the information within the statutory timeframe. As the information has been disclosed, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50868429

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.651474

The complainant has requested a specific briefing note, minutes of a meeting and any information relating to a previous FOI request referred to the ICO and which was the subject of an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. The Council originally applied section 14 FOIA as it considered the request to be vexatious but subsequently responded to the request confirming that it did not hold information falling within the scope of the first part of the request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA and provided some information located falling within the scope of the second part of the request. The complainant does not accept that he has been provided with all recorded information held by the Council falling within the scope of both parts of his request. The Commissioner considers that on the balance of probabilities no further information is held falling within the scope of the request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA other than that which has now been provided. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO IC-45878-G1X0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.656211

A monetary penalty notice has been served on the Ministry of Justice for failing to keep personal data securely, after spreadsheets showing prisoners’ details were emailed to members of the public in error.

Citations:

[2013] UKICO 2013-3

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.528797

The complainant has requested budgetary information from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS advised that to comply with the request would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12 of the FOIA. The complainant did not consider that the MPS had provided him with adequate advice and assistance about his request, as required under section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS complied with its duty under section 16 of the FOIA. No steps are required.
FOI 16: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO FS50913911

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.653672

Meeting minutes : Partially upheld

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 163 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.645519

The complainant has requested information concerning repairs carried out by the London Borough of Islington (the council) on a specific property. The council refused the request on the grounds that it was the personal data of the occupier of that property and that disclosure would be unfair. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to refuse the request as the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the FOIA was engaged. The council is not, therefore, required to disclose this information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50421538

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.529313

(Dismissed)

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 2019 – 0445 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.656634

Refused

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 2020 – 0168 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.656631

The complainant requested a transmission log of the faxes received by the Central London County Court during specified time periods. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO FS50856055

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.656205

Allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 2019 – 0199 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.644345