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

The complainant has requested a list of structural reports where the structure’s condition was most recently described as ‘dangerous.’ Highways England refused the request because it estimated that the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that HE should have dealt with the request under the EIR, but that the request was Manifestly Unreasonable and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. HE was therefore entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. She also finds that HE complied with its Regulation 9 duty to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
EIR 9: Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50879100

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650419

The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking internal FCO analysis about Mexican and Central American migrants crossing the US-Mexican border. The FCO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but it sought to withhold this on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and 40(2) personal data of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) and section 40(2). However, she has also concluded that the FCO breached section 17(3) of FOIA by failing to conclude its public interest test considerations and provide the complainant with a substantive response to his request within a reasonable timeframe.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 27: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50859393

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650410

The complainant requested information about grievances and the associated investigation reports relating to the Dublin Cessation Team, (formerly known as the Third Country Unit), from the Home Office. The request was refused by the Home Office on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA, the exemption for personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has correctly cited section 40(2) in refusing to provide the requested information. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50857460

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650426

The complainant has requested information about a Facebook Group that is operated by a named councillor. Buckingham Town Council responded that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly confirmed that the information is not held. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps, but refers it to ‘Other matters’.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50890359

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650384

The complainant requested information from The Diocese of Westminster Academy Trust (‘the Trust’) about the cost to date of conducting an investigation into malpractice. 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. The complainant requested information from The Diocese of Westminster Academy Trust (‘the Trust’) about the cost to date of conducting an investigation into malpractice. 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 fs50884907

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650403

Judges:

Mrs Justice Steyn

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1011 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

General Data Protection Regulation 2018

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650201

The complainant requested information regarding a specific planning application. The public authority applied the exemption available under section 21 of the Act and stated that most of the information was available by other means. The public authority refused to disclose copies of legal advice and applied section 42 of the Act. The complainant maintained that further information was held by the public authority and this formed the basis of her complaint to the Commissioner. The Commissioner found that the EIR was the relevant legislation under which the request should have been considered but that further information was not held by the public authority. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken by the public authority but raised concerns about its ability to identity environmental information, as defined by the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0368804

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.530648

Praxis Care Limited breached both the UK Data Protection Act and the Isle of Man Data Protection Act by failing to keep peoples’ data secure. An unencrypted memory stick, containing personal information relating to 107 Isle of Man residents and 53 individuals from Northern Ireland, was lost on the Isle of Man.

Citations:

[2012] UKICO 2012-53

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.529113

The complainant asked for permission to visit the Council’s archives and ‘have access to, research and make copies’ of all documents relating to the transfer of property previously owned by the former Lyme Regis Town Council to West Dorset District Council. The Council refused the request on the basis that it considered it to be manifestly unreasonably under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 but during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation sought to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner agrees that in this case the Act is the relevant legislation and he found that the Council had appropriately applied section 14(1). Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0157 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0360240

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.530632

The complainant has requested information about the number of judicial reviews. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) and is satisfied that the PHSO met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50780184

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.634919

In multi-part requests, the complainant has requested information from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) about the external review process associated with its handling of service complaints. PHSO released some information, relied on section 21(1) of the FOIA (information accessible to the applicant by other means) with regard to aspects of the requests and confirmed it does not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: PHSO correctly applied section 21(1) to some information it holds but incorrectly applied it to other information. PHSO breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) with regard to information it has now identified that falls within the scope of elements of request 1 and request 3 of 6 June 2018, and request 1a of 20 July 2018. On the balance of probabilities, PHSO holds no further relevant information and complied with section 1(1) with regard to the remaining parts of the complainant’s requests. The Commissioner requires PHSO to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: If it has not already done so, and if it is not exempt information, release to the complainant the further relevant information it has identified, which is discussed at paragraphs 38 and 42, with any personal data redacted as appropriate.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 21: Complaint partly upheld FOI 1: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50790769

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.638117

The complainant has requested information on the discussions and decision relating to quashing or withdrawing reports. The PHSO provided some information but maintained that legal advice was exempt under section 42 of the FOIA. The PHSO also withheld some information on the basis of section 44 and 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO has correctly applied the provisions of section 42, 44 and 40 to withhold the remaining information within the scope of the request. She requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 42: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 44: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50778473

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.638715

The complainant has submitted a request for an organogram of its public-facing staff to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (‘PHSO’). PHSO provided some general information, applied section 21(1) of the FOIA to other information (reasonably accessible information) and said it does not hold the specific information the complainant has requested. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities PHSO does not hold the specific information the complainant has requested and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA with regards to this information. The information that PHSO holds which is broadly related to the complainant’s request is exempt information under section 21(1). The Commissioner does not require PHSO to take any remedial steps.
FOI 21: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50793764

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.638044

The complainant has requested information about the legal status of CCT (Customer Care Team) reviews. The PHSO responded refusing to disclose the requested information citing section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information under section 42 of the FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0032 under appeal.
FOI 42: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50788785

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.634920

The complainant has requested information in connection with a newspaper article reporting a child having being questioned about ‘radicalisation’. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(a) is not engaged, however she finds that London Borough of Redbridge (LBR) was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) and section 31(2)(i) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require LBR to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 31: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50828533

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650462

The complainant has requested copies of a Joint Working Team manual published in March and June 2019. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the PHSO to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50871882

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650457

The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (the Council) concerning a decision to postpone a project. The Council responded to advise that it did not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, based on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50829069

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650464

The complainant submitted three requests for information regarding particular events held by the University of Bath (the University). The University refused to comply with any of the three requests and cited section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the requests. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50840106

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650474

The complainant requested information relating to Shropshire Council’s highways contract. Shropshire Council (the Council) said that it did not hold the requested reports. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold information within the scope of the request. She therefore considers that the Council complied with its obligations under section 1(1) (general right of access to information) of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner found a procedural breach of section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50862362

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650467

The complainant requested from West Oxfordshire District Council (the Council) information relating to the Council’s building control performance standards and site inspections. The Council provided information within the scope of some parts of the request but withheld information within the scope of parts 2 and 3 under sections 43(2) (commercial interests), 43(1) (trade secrets) and 41 (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA. Therefore, she has not gone on to consider the application of sections 43(1) and 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
FOI 43(2): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50820666

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650480

The complainant requested the total numbers of police officers deployed to Royal Ascot, together with the associated costs, for four specified years. Thames Valley Police (‘TVP’) refused to provide the requested information citing subsections (a) and (b) of section 31(1), the exemption for law enforcement, and said it did not hold the cost related information. The complainant is concerned only with TVP’s refusal to provide the police numbers withheld under section 31 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TVP was correct to cite sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA and to conclude that the balance of the public interest test favours maintaining the exemption. However, by failing to respond to the request and issue a refusal notice within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, the Commissioner finds that TVP has breached sections 10 (time for compliance) and 17 (refusal of a request) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require TVP to take any steps as a result of this notice.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 31: Complaint not upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50869809

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650471

The complainant requested information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (‘PSNI’) in relation to disciplinary proceedings against a police officer. The PSNI refused to disclose the requested information, citing the exemptions at sections 31 and 40(2) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI has correctly applied section 31 of the FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner did not go on to consider the PSNI’s application of section 40(2) as she considered that section 31 applied to the entirety of the requested information. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50826974

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650460

The complainant has submitted a 10 part request to Pharmacy2U. Pharmacy2U indicated that it was not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA for nine parts of the request and relied on section 21 of the FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means) to withhold information relevant to one part. During the Commissioner’s investigation Pharmacy2U reconsidered its position with regard to the request and issued a fresh response to the complainant. Pharmacy2U confirmed that it considers it is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA with regard to parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the request. Pharmacy2U says that information that it holds that is related to parts 7, 8, 9 and 10 is caught by the FOIA but is exempt information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. Pharmacy2U has released information relevant to part 6 and directed the complainant to where other information related to this part is published. The complainant is satisfied with Pharmacy2U’s fresh response to part 6 of the request but is dissatisfied with Pharmacy2U’s response to the remaining nine parts. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: If held, the information requested in parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the request is held for the purposes of the FOIA. Pharmacy2U therefore breached section 1(1)(a) and section 10(1) of the FOIA with regard to these parts. The information the complainant has requested in parts 7, 8, 9 and 10 is exempt information under section 43(2) of the FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. Pharmacy2U breached section 17(1) of the FOIA as it did not issue a refusal notice in respect of parts 7, 8, 9 and 10 within 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner requires Pharmacy2U to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a fresh response to parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of his request that complies with the FOIA.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 43: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50835478

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650458

The complainant submitted a series of requests to the University of Southampton (the University) regarding the ‘Mountbatten Archive’ which concerns the papers of Lord and Lady Mountbatten. The University provided some of the information requested, but sought to withhold further information on the basis of a variety of exemptions within FOIA, namely: 37(1)(a) (communications with the Sovereign), 40(2) (personal data), 41(1) (information provided in confidence), 43(2) (commercial interests) and 44(1) (statutory prohibition). The University also argued that it did not hold some of the information that had been requested and that to provide some of the information would exceed the appropriate cost limit at section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that only some of these exemptions have been applied correctly. Furthermore, whilst she has concluded that section 12 has been applied correctly, and the University does not hold some of the additional information alleged by the complainant, it does hold some further information in the scope of the request which was not previous been disclosed to him.
FOI 43: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint partly upheld FOI 41: Complaint partly upheld FOI 37: Complaint upheld FOI 3: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint partly upheld FOI 44: Complaint partly upheld FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50772671

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650475

The complainant requested information about blackmail crimes. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey Police 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 Surrey Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50882689

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650470

The complainant requested the total numbers of police officers deployed to Reading Festival for three specified years. Thames Valley Police (‘TVP’) refused to provide the requested information citing subsections (a) and (b) of section 31(1), the exemption for law enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is that TVP was correct to cite sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA and to conclude that the balance of the public interest test favours maintaining the exemption. She does not require TVP to take any steps as a result of this notice.
FOI 31: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50869942

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650472

The complainant has requested information about the number of people who had been made subject to Staffordshire County Council’s Policy for Dealing with ‘Unreasonably Persistent Complainants’ and ‘Unreasonable Complainant Behaviour’. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire County Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request beyond that which it has previously disclosed. The Commissioner does not require Staffordshire County Council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50853581

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650468

The complainant submitted a request to Westminster City Council (the Council) seeking information about the judicial review of the Cycle Superhighway CS11. The Council disclosed some information but sought to withhold the remainder of the information on the basis of section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Council subsequently accepted that the request should have been considered under the EIR and sought to withhold the information under regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications), regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) and 13 (personal data). The complainant sought to challenge the Council’s reliance on regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b). The Commissioner has concluded that some of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(5)(b) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours withholding this information. She has also concluded that some of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(4)(e) but that the public interest in maintaining this exception does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner has also concluded that the Council breached regulation 11(4) by failing to complete its internal review within 40 working days.
EIR 11(4): Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50832725

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650479

The complainant has requested Ofgem to disclose an itemised breakdown of all payments made under the non-domestic renewable heat initiative over the last three years. Ofgem disclosed some information to the complainant but informed him that the remainder is exempt from disclosure under regulation 13 of the EIR. At the internal review stage Ofgem revised its position and informed the complainant that it was refusing to comply with his request in accordance with regulation 12(4)(b) (on the basis of cost). The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR in this case and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exception. She has however recorded a breach of regulation 9. Although Ofgem has now provided advice and assistance, it failed to do so when it first cited regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken
EIR 9: Complaint upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0846558

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650455

The complainant has requested information relating to negotiations between a record company and the council regarding a music festival. The council applied a number of exemptions to withhold information, including section 36(2)(i) and (ii) and section 36(2)(c). Following discussions with the Commissioner the complainant agreed to only appeal the application of section 36 to the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 36(2)(i) and (ii), and section 36(2)(c) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50829577

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650433

The complainant has requested particular correspondence and evidence of particular decisions. He is dissatisfied because the ICO has categorised his three part request as vexatious and has refused to comply with it. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s request can be categorised as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA and, as such, the ICO is not obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50843984

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650430

The complainant has requested information with regards to a server failure. Harrogate Borough Council (the council) responded to advise it does not hold the requested information, other than what he has previously been provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps but has addressed its refusal to carry out an internal review in the ‘other matters’ section at the end of the decision notice.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50819323

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650416

The complainant has requested statistics about claims submitted to county courts. The Ministry of Justice withheld the requested information, which it claimed was held by virtue of being contained within court records. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ is entitled to rely on section 32 of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
FOI 32: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50878311

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650451

The complainant has requested certain files related to the Spycatcher case. The Cabinet Office refused to provide them citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) as its basis for doing so on the grounds that it would incur considerable burden upon its resources. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 14 as its basis for refusing to comply with the request. No steps are required.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50858261

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650386

The complainant has requested information about Tier 2 visa refusals. DHSC refused to disclose the requested information under section 35(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) FOIA was applied incorrectly to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information.
FOI 35: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50817580

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650400

The complainant has requested the GMC to disclose the evidence base for its refusal to investigate a complaint brought to it. The GMC refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held citing section 40(5A) and 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held in this case in accordance with section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA. She does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 40(5B)(a)(i): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50887698

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650411

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 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50889250

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650392

The complainant has requested copies of all the Waste Infrastructure Delivery Programme (‘WIDP’) Transactor’s Monthly Reports (‘TMRs’) for Norfolk County Council’s waste treatment private finance initiative. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (‘Defra’) refused to provide the requested information, citing Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and Regulation 13(1)(third party personal data). Later, Defra also cited Regulations 12(5)(e)(confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and 12(5(f)(interests of the information provider). The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra failed to demonstrate that Regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) are engaged. She finds that Regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged but that the public interest in disclosing the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exception. She also finds that Defra is not entitled to rely on part of the information it withheld under Regulation 13(1). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
EIR 13(1): Complaint partly upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(f): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0841290

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650397

The complainant requested information from Cheshire East Council (‘the Council’) relating to the use of an alleyway. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental in nature; however, the Council does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request, other than information which is publicly accessible on its website. The Council breached the requirement, under regulation 14(2) of the EIR, to provide its refusal within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the EIR.
EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld EIR 14(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50846956

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650390

The aim of the Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC) is to promote investment in renewable energy, by entering into contracts (known as Contracts for Difference (CfDs)) with potential generators which fix the price for the electricity produced from windfarms. Under the terms of a CfD the wind farm has to be operational by an agreed date. The complainant requested information relating to whether a particular generator had applied for an extension to, what the Commissioner will refer to as, its start date on the basis that there had been a force majeure. The LCCC refused to disclose any information as to whether such a claim had been made under the regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications, 12(5)(b) – adverse affect to the course of justice, 12(5)(e) – confidentiality of commercial information, 12(5)(f) – voluntary supply of information. The Commissioner’s decision is that all the information can be withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) and that some of it can be withheld under 12(5)(b). The exception provided by regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged, but can only be relied on to withhold the information when the public interest in favour of maintaining that exception is aggregated with the public interest in favour of maintaining regulation 12(5)(e). The exception provided by regulation 12(5)(f) is not engaged. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the following any further action in this matter.
EIR 12(5)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Complaint not upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint not upheld EIR 12(5)(f): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0848972

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650445

In three 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 High Speed 2 rail project. With regard to the first series of requests, the Department for Transport (DfT) provided information relevant to some of the requests. It originally relied on the exception under regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with four requests (manifestly unreasonable request). However, it subsequently complied with one of these but confirmed to the Commissioner that it was relying on 12(4)(b) with regard to another of the requests. DfT withheld other information under regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial interests) and regulation 13 (personal data).With regard to a second series of requests, DfT’s position is that it did not hold information within the scope of one of the requests at the time it was submitted. DfT released information it considered falls within the scope of the second request, having redacted some of the information under regulation 12(5)(e).With regard to the four parts of a third request, DfT released information relevant to two parts, and relied on regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold information relevant to the remaining two parts. The complainant considers: DfT holds information in relation to one of the first series of requests; is incorrectly relying on regulation 12(4)(b) with regard to three of the requests and did not provide adequate advice and assistance with regard to those requests. The complainant considers that DfT holds information within the scope of one of the second series of requests, and further information within the scope of the remaining request. Finally, the complainant is dissatisfied with DfT’s reliance on regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold information relating to request 3. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, DfT has complied with regulation 5(1) but breached regulation 5(2) with regard to request 2.2. DfT can rely on regulation 12(4)(a) with regard to requests 1.10 and 2.1 because, on the balance of probabilities, it did not hold the specific information requested at the time the complainant submitted these requests. DfT can rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with requests 1.4, 1.5, 1.8 and 1.11 by virtue of cost, and the public interest favours maintaining this exception. With regard to the 12(4)(b) exception, DfT offered the complainant adequate advice and assistance and complied with . .
EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld EIR 9: Complaint not upheld EIR 11: Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 5: Complaint partly upheld EIR 14: Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0838246

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650398

The complainant made a request for all information held between 01/03/2015 and 08/03/2019 relating to four particular search terms. NE refused to comply with the request under regulation 12(4)(c) EIR as it considered the request was formulated in too general a manner. The Commissioner considers that NE incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(c) EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the complainant not relying upon the regulation 12(4)(c) exception.
EIR 12(4)(c): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50855214

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650453

The complainant has requested information related to claimants of benefits who had committed suicide. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) does not hold information further to that already disclosed. However, the Commissioner does find that DWP breached section 10 by not providing the disclosed information within the statutory time frame. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any further steps with regards to this request.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50812627

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650399

The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking correspondence between it and the University of Southampton regarding the purchase of the ‘Mountbatten Archive’. The Cabinet Office disclosed some information to the complainant but sought to withhold further information falling within the scope of his request on the basis of sections 21 (reasonably accessible to the requester), 23 (security bodies), 26 (defence), 27 (international relations), 35 (formulation and development of government policy), 40 (personal data), 41 (information provided in confidence), 42 (legal professional privilege), 43 (commercial interests) and 44 (statutory prohibition) of FOIA. The complainant also submitted a further request to the Cabinet Office seeking a schedule of the correspondence falling within the scope of his request. The Commissioner has concluded that only some of the information which the Cabinet Office is seeking to withhold is exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemptions it has cited. The remaining information is not exempt from disclosure. The Commissioner also has concluded that the Cabinet Office failed to provide the complainant with a schedule of information in response to his further request.
FOI 40: Complaint partly upheld FOI 41: Complaint partly upheld FOI 26: Complaint upheld FOI 37: Complaint partly upheld FOI 27: Complaint upheld FOI 44: Complaint not upheld FOI 23: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50827458

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650385

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 187 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.634348

The complainant requested information regarding staffing and Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision. The Commissioner’s decision is that Norfolk County Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50784985

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.634909

The complainant requested any communications between the Planning Inspectorate and DEFRA or any other third parties regarding an inquiry it was undertaking regarding an application to de-register common land. The Planning Inspectorate withheld the information under Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications), and Regulation 12(5)(b) (adverse effect on the course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Planning Inspectorate was correct to withhold the information under Regulation 12(4)(e). He has therefore not considered the application of 12(5)(b) further. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0160 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0377965

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.530608

The complainant requested minutes of the meetings of a group set up by the public authority in relation to the regeneration of Roman Road East District Centre. The public authority withheld the information on the basis of the exemptions at sections 36(2)(b) (i) and (ii) and 36(2)(c) of the Act. The Commissioner found that the request should have been addressed under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR). He therefore ordered the public authority to either disclose the information or respond to the request in accordance with its responsibilities under the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50368609

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.530791

The complainant has requested information concerning alterations being made to the interior of a neighbouring property. Bolton 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 to that individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bolton 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:

[2011] UKICO FS50397686

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.530803

The complainant requested, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, twelve items of information that related to how his complaint and other complaints of his family were handled by the Trust. The Trust provided some information, explained that it did not hold other information and withheld other information by virtue of sections 12 [the costs limit], 21 [information reasonably accessible to the applicant], 40(1) [first party personal data], 40(2) [third party personal data] and 44(1) [a statutory bar prohibits its disclosure]. The Trust was relying on the statutory bar found in section 15 of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1995 that prohibited information obtained by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for the purposes of her investigations. The complainant requested an internal review and referred the case to the Commissioner. He explained that he was not content that he had received all the appropriate information in relation to the information that had been disclosed and that he believed that the exemptions had been applied inappropriately. He agreed that the Commissioner need not consider the operation of section 40(1) and to a limited extent section 40(2) during the course of his investigation. Further information was disclosed and the Commissioner has found that the Trust has applied sections 21(1), 40(2) and 44(1) appropriately to the information that it continues to withhold. He has also found a number of procedural breaches, but requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0183 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50356737

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.530796

The complainant requested a copy of the draft Bradford Retail and Leisure Study. The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the Council) refused to disclose this information, relying on the exception provided by regulation 12(4)(d) (unfinished documents) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) has been applied correctly and so the Council was not required to disclose this information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.d – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0488392

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.528330

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50388204

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.530914

The complainant requested confirmation of whether The Supreme Court held copies of various Acts, statutory instruments and Schedules. The Supreme Court confirmed that it had access to all UK legislation. The Commissioner finds that in giving an answer to the complainant the Supreme Court have provided the information requested and have complied with the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50381706

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.530790

On 6 April 2014, Mr R asked the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) for the information in 21 publications referenced in the response to a previous request he had made to the SPS. The SPS purported to withhold the information under section 25 of FOISA, on the basis that it was reasonably accessible to Mr R without requesting it under FOISA.
During the investigation, the SPS confirmed that it did not hold the information. It informed Mr R of this. The Commissioner accepted that the SPS did not hold the information, but found that the SPS had failed to give Mr R proper notice of this.

Citations:

[2014] ScotIC 196 – 2014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.538095

The complainant submitted requests to the governing body of Tidemill Primary School for information from meetings. The complainant specified that she wished to receive this information electronically. The governing body provided some information, but stated that it would not provide the remaining information in the complainant’s preferred format. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the governing body was entitled to refuse to comply with the part of the complainant’s request to receive information electronically. However, in relation to another part of the request, it has breached section 11(1)(a) of the Act by failing to provide the information electronically. It has also breached section 1(1)(a) of the Act by failing to confirm it did not hold information, and section 10(1) by failing to comply with section 1(1) within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the governing body to disclose some further information to the complainant electronically.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 11 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50356379

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.530698

The complainant requested information concerning communications between the Secretary of State for Scotland or his private office and a member of the Scottish Parliament. The public authority refused the request, citing the exemptions provided by sections 35(1)(b) (information relating to Ministerial communications) and 35(1)(d) (information relating to the operation of any Ministerial private office) of the Act. This refusal was overturned at internal review and the requested information was disclosed. This Decision Notice records that the public authority breached sections 17(1)(c) and 17(3)(b) in issuing an inadequate refusal notice that included no explanation as to why the exemptions were believed to be engaged, nor as to why the balance of the public interest was believed to favour the maintenance of those exemptions.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50378040

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.530693

The complainant asked Cumbria Constabulary to provide information relating to European Arrest Warrants. The public authority refused to disclose this using the exemptions in sections 23(1) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) and 30(1) (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It later varied this stating that, in respect of three parts of the request, that no information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, where cited, no information is held. He further finds that the exemption in section 23 is engaged in relation to the remaining parts of the request. He has therefore not considered the applicability of section 30. The complaint is not upheld. The public authority’s handling of the request resulted in breaches of certain procedural requirements of the Act as identified in this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50367379

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.530719

The complainant requested the Council to release a copy of its recent contract with KPMG. The Council responded disclosing a redacted version of the contract to the complainant. It informed the complainant that the redacted information comprised of KPMG’s day rates and the resources required under the contract and that this information had been withheld under section 43(2) of the Act. As the complainant remained dissatisfied, he approached the Commissioner. The Commissioner has considered the complaint and he has concluded that the remaining information is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of the Act. He therefore requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50344531

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.530598

The complainant requested information in connection with the Project Omega Public Private Partnership (PPP) that included a list of parties who applied to NI Water to pre-qualify for Project Omega, electronic copies of their bid documents, ITN (Invitation to Negotiate) submissions, construction timetables and financial models. The complainant also requested particular board packs that may have been circulated to the board of NI Water concerning the project. NI Water disclosed some of the information requested but withheld the remainder under section 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northern Ireland Water correctly applied the exception under section 12(5)(e) of the EIR to the withheld information. The Commissioner also found a number of procedural breaches in relation to the handling of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0043 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0352991

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.529105

Judges:

Mr Justice Tugendhat

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3413 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.450156

Citations:

[2008] UKIT EA – 2006 – 0064

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.270779

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the maintenance of pavements by the council. The Council advised him that the information requested was not covered by the FOI Act. The notice required the Council to deal with the request and, if it was considered that the information was exempt, to issue a Refusal Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50059852

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.533208

The complainant has requested any external legal advice on the public consultation titled ‘Home Education – Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance’ running from 10 April 2018 to 2 July 2018. The DfE responded refusing to disclose the requested information citing section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information under section 42 of the FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 42: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50789890

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.634846

ICO Complainant requested documents and correspondence relating to any payments made to Conrad Shawcross for his exhibition ‘Continuum’ which was staged at Queen’s House at the NMM. This exhibition was part of NMM’s New Visions series. NMM argued that to release the information would prejudice their own and Mr Shawcross’ commercial interests citing Section 43 (2) and that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. NMM explained that they were involved in active negotiations with the next proposed artist in their New Visions series at the time the FOI request was made. In our view, the public interest in protecting NMM’s bargaining position during active and contemporaneous negotiations for a project of a similar nature overrides, for the time being, the public interest in releasing the financial details of the negotiations which immediately preceded those active negotiations. It was noted that as a consequence of this decision, the potential prejudice to Mr Shawcross’ commercial interest will also be avoided because the requested information relates to both parties. However, we believe that the potential prejudice to Mr Shawcross’ commercial interests is not, in itself, sufficient reason to maintain the exemption. The complainant has lodged an appeal. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50063478

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.533223

ICO Complainant requested information regarding action taken by the Inland Revenue concerning specific instances of alleged failed standards. The Inland Revenue stated that this information was not held. The Decision Notice found that the Inland Revenue was not in breach of s.1. The complainant has lodged an appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50067001

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.533210

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the Council’s handling of a bye election and also about public attendance at the Council’s reception. The Council failed to provide any response within 20 working days. The Notice identified the breach and required the Council to deal with the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50069103

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.533214

ICO Complainant requested a copy of a report from the Council, who failed to respond properly in that it neither provided the information nor issued an adequate Refusal Notice, even when prompted by the ICO.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FAC0063912

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.533217

The complainant requested information on organisations that have received concessionary loans from the Education and Skills Funding Agency. The Department for Education (DfE) withheld the information under FOIA section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and 43 (commercial interests) but released the information during the Commissioner’s investigation. The complainant remains dissatisfied with the length of time it took DfE to comply with its duties under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: DfE’s response to the complainant’s request of 5 March 2018 complied with section 10(1) of the FOIA as DfE complied with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The information has now been released and the Commissioner does not require DfE to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 10: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50792954

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.638075

ICO Complainant requested information relating to a planning application. Council failed to respond within 20 working days. Council has subsequently responded and the Decision Notice did not therefore identify any steps to be taken. The Council lodged an appeal which has since been dismissed by the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50079178

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.533218

The complainant has requested a document and correspondence associated with Toby Young’s appointment to the Board of the Office for Students. The Department for Education (DfE) has released some information and is withholding other information under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2)(third person personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The ‘merit document’ engages the exemptions under section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(c) but the public interest favours its release. DfE is entitled to withhold the information redacted from email correspondence it released under section 40(2), but the merit document does not engage section 40(2). The Commissioner requires DfE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Release the merit document identified by the department as falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner wishes to clarify that the DfE did in fact respond to all the Commissioner’s questions during her investigation of the case contrary to what is stated in paragraph 14 of the DN.
FOI 36: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50799027

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.638675

The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (‘DfE’) relating to guidance from the DfE to Ofsted regarding the changes to ‘British values’ in schools. The DfE refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 36(2) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the FOIA in this case and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the requested information. Therefore, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 36: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50587396

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.559032

The complainant has requested a copy of the legal advice the DfE holds in relation to the legality of section 444 of the Education Act for parents who take their children out of school to visit relatives overseas. The DfE responded refusing to disclose the requested information citing section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information under section 42 of the FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 42: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50745784

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.628501

The complainant requested information relating to the Condition Improvement Fund. The Education and Skills Funding Agency (the Agency) is an executive agency of the Department for Education. The Agency cited section 22 (intended for future publication) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Agency has correctly applied section 22(1) of the FOIA in its response to the request.
FOI 22: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50774029

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.634968

The complainant has requested information relating to the procedures followed by the Department for Education (DfE) when refusing a previous request under section 36 – inhibition to the free and frank exchange of views and advice. The DfE refused the follow up request under section 14(1) on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has not demonstrated that the follow up request is vexatious. Therefore the Commissioner finds it is not entitled to refuse to respond to the request under section 14(1). The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the request without relying on section 14(1).
FOI 14: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50723593

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.628388

The complainant has requested information consisting of the responses from members of the public and other stakeholders in relation to the proposals to transfer schools that were part of Wakefield City Academy Trust (WCAT) to other academy sponsors. The Department for Education (DfE) withheld the requested information under section 36 – prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. However, during the investigation by the Commissioner the DfE disclosed the information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE failed to disclose the requested information within the statutory timeframe and consequently breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50748672

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.634842

ICO Complainant requested information relating to the handling of complaints by MHRA. MHRA failed to inform the complainant in writing and within 20 working days stating whether the information was held. The Agency did, however, then provide some of the information and confirmed that the remainder was not held. The Decision Notice was issued to this effect – recognising, where possible, that information had been provided, but that this was not done in writing within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50061644

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.533212

The complainant has requested information about communications and meetings between a named official and a number of other professionals. The Department for Education (DfE) provided some information but refused the majority of it under section 36(2) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs and 40(2) – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied sections 36(2) and 40(2) to withhold the requested information. However the original refusal notice it provided to complainant was invalid as it was issued before the DfE had obtained the qualified person’s opinion that section 36 was engaged. This resulted in a breach of section 17(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 40(2): Complaint not upheld FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50723591

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.628274

ICO Complainant requested access to the minutes of the Strategic Management Board. The Council refused to provide the information but did not issue a Refusal Notice in accordance with the Act. As the information was subsequently provided, the Notice did not identify any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FAC0063925

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.533215

ICO Complainant objected to andpound;25 charge imposed by the Council for providing 296 pages of photocopied information relating to the erection of wind turbines. The ICO accepts the Council’s view that this charge is reasonable.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 8 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FAC0065281

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.533216

The complainant has requested a copy of the evidence that was considered by the Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC) as part of their decision to allow a particular academy to reduce the number of pupils it admitted. The Department for Education (DfE) has refused to provide some of the requested information under section 36 – prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(i) is engaged in respect of all the withheld information. However the public interest favours disclosing a limited amount of that information. Section 36(2)(c) has also been applied to those same pieces of, information. However the Information Commissioner finds that that exemption is not engaged. Finally the Information Commissioner finds that the DfE breached section 10 by failing to respond to the request within twenty working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information that is not covered by either section 36(2)(b)(i) or 36(2)(c). This is identified in the confidential annex which has been provided to the DfE only.
FOI 36: Complaint partly upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50799018

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.638740

The complainant has requested the spellings used in the literacy test taken by prospective trainee teachers over a 12 month period. He asked for each spelling and data showing which were mostly misspelt and which were mostly spelt correctly. For each of the spellings mostly misspelt he required the absolute number of candidates and percentage of candidates for each word. The DfE refused to disclose the requested information citing section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE acted appropriately by refusing to disclose the requested information under section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. As a result she does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 36: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50633745

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.583710

The complainant has requested Key Stage 1 (KS1) assessment data broken down to school level. The Department for Education (DfE) disclosed the KS1 data at Local Authority level but refused to provide this at school level on the basis of section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied the provisions of section 36(2)(c) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0036 under appeal.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50735914

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.634841

The complainant has requested a report into the performance of the Interim Executive Board (IEB) of a named school. The Department for Education (DfE) disclosed some information but refused to disclose the report in its entirety under the exemptions provided by section 36(2)(c) – otherwise prejudice the conduct of public affairs, and s40(2) – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50764905

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.634845

ICO Complainant requested information used in order to determine his council tax band. The VOA had provided this on several occasions previously and the complainant was in fact disputing the information used to calculate the band. However, the FOI Act does not give the ICO powers to investigate the quality of information held by public authorities. Given that the VOA did not respond in 20 working days, the Decision Notice was issued without steps. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50076626

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.533222