Category: Information

Norfolk County Council (Local Government): ICO 23 Jun 2020

The complainant has requested information from Norfolk County Council (‘the council’), in relation to an ethical policy for both procurement and investments. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not a valid request for information because it does not meet the requirements of section 8 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 8: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50910661

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.653684

Humberside Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 30 Jul 2019

The complainant has requested information about the management of personal information during the execution of a search warrant from Humberside Police (‘HP’). HP provided some information and maintained that further information was not held. During the Commissioner’s investigation HP identified a document which had not previously been provided to the complainant. The Commissioner requires HP to disclose this document. In failing to disclose it within 20 working days HP has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. In respect of any further information which may be held, the Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, no further information is held.
FOI 10: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50817217

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.643217

Department of Finance Northern Ireland (Other): ICO 30 Jul 2019

The complainant requested information relating to expenses claimed by the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Finance. The Department relied on section 22 of the FOIA to refuse the request, but the Commissioner’s decision is that the request as submitted was not clear, and the Department failed to request clarification from the complainant. Therefore the Commissioner has not made a decision with regard to section 22, although she finds that the Department failed to comply with section 1(1)(a), section 10(1) and section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Department to clarify the scope of the request and issue a fresh response.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50823790

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.643190

Folkestone and Hythe District Council (Local Government): ICO 23 Jun 2020

The complainant has requested information on Folkestone and Hythe District Council’s freedom of information Publication Scheme. The Council refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that Folkestone and Hythe District Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA and refuse the request as vexatious. She also finds that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA – time for compliance – by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
FOI 14(1): Complaint not upheld FOI 10(1): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50892765

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.653642

Croydon Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 10 May 2019

The complainant requested information relating to completion certificates for 9 converted flats in Croydon. The public authority refused to comply with the request relying on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) EIR (manifestly unreasonable request). The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) EIR.
EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0742648

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.638670

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 10 May 2019

The complainant has requested information regarding the First World War Centenary Cathedral repairs fund (the fund). The Cabinet Office refused to comply with the request under section 12 of the Act as it considered compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 12(2) of the Act to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any further steps.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50794370

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.638658

Police Service of Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Feb 2012

The complainant has requested the locations of fixed number plate recognition cameras operated by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (the PSNI). The PSNI refused the request under sections 24(1) and 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI was entitled to rely on section 31 as a basis for withholding the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50407932

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.529225

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested information regarding the refund of travel costs whilst on temporary admission to the UK. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was correct to state that it did not hold any further recorded information in relation to part of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50495438

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.528887

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Nov 2013

The complainant requested the names and details of the roles of staff working under former Chief Constable of Durham Police, Jon Stoddart on the Hillsborough investigation. He also requested copies of documents relating to Jon Stoddart’s secondment arrangement to the public authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information requested on the basis of the exemption at section 40(2) FOIA. The public authority does not need to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50505935

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.528889

Welsh Government (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Apr 2012

The complainant requested information relating to the decision to bring in free admission to heritage sites to Welsh citizens under the age of 16 or over the age of 60. The Welsh Assembly Government (‘the Welsh Government’) disclosed some information but withheld other information under section 42 and 35 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government incorrectly withheld information which, although exempt, should be disclosed as the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the requested information which it has so far withheld, subject to the redactions as highlighted in the confidential annex. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0103 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50386722

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.529438

Police Service of Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Jun 2010

The complainant made two requests to the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) for information relating to travel arrangements made by or on behalf of the son of the then Chief Constable. The PSNI refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing the exemption at section 40(5) (third party personal data). The Commissioner considers that section 40(5) has been incorrectly applied in this instance and the PSNI is required to confirm or deny whether it holds information relating to the first request and to consider the second request accordingly.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50202772

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.531531

Police Service of Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Jun 2010

The complainant requested information regarding the number of police message forms that were served on ex-security force members in Northern Ireland during a particular period. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (the PSNI) refused the request under section 12 of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the PSNI applied section 12 correctly, and therefore he does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50216426

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.531533

Welsh Government (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Jun 2012

The complainant requested information relating to Powys Fadog and the River Lodge Hotel, Llangollen. Some information was disclosed and other information withheld under sections 36, 40 and 42 and 43. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Welsh Government disclosed some additional information but maintained its reliance on sections 36, 40 and 42. The Welsh Government also introduced its reliance on section 21 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has correctly withheld some information under sections 21, 36, 40 and 42. The Commissioner has also concluded that some information which the Welsh Government considered falls outside the scope of the request was relevant to the request and should have been considered for disclosure. The Commissioner has also identified a number of procedural matters associated with the handling of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to reconsider the information which the Welsh Government has considered out of scope of the request and either disclose the information or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of the FOIA; and disclose the name of the journalist who contacted the Welsh Government about a media enquiry in relation to the River Lodge Hotel.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50388059

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.529592

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested information about a Certificate of Application, in relation to immigration. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has applied section 40(2) appropriately. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498285

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.528888

Police Service of Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 21 May 2009

The complainant requested information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (the ‘PSNI’) relating to an investigation into a murder. The PSNI refused the request, claiming that all of the requested information was exempt under section 30(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act. The PSNI initially advised the Commissioner that it had not considered whether it actually held information of the description specified in the request, and that it had come to the view that it might not hold the information. Subsequently the requested information was discovered by the PSNI, but it was intermingled with information not relevant to the request. The PSNI then sought to refuse the request under the cost limit set out in section 12. The Commissioner found that the PSNI had not adequately searched for the information at the time of the request, and that its refusal notice failed to comply with the requirements of section 17 of the Act. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that the request could correctly be refused under section 12 of the Act, as the process of extracting the requested information from the physical files would exceed the cost limit. Accordingly the Commissioner does not require the PSNI to take any remedial steps in relation to this request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50152489

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.532039

Wandsworth Council (Decision Notice) FS50400972: ICO 16 Nov 2011

The complainant requested information about parking enforcement policies at Wandsworth Council (the council). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to refuse the requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA on the grounds that they were vexatious. He does not require the council to take any further action. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0282 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50400972

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.531124

National Patient Safety Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Dec 2007

The complainant requested a copy of a report regarding a critical incident which occurred at a Paediatric High Dependency Unit on 07 January 2003 and copies of similar incidents reported to the public authority between 2000 and 2003. The public authority responded in accordance with its duty under section 1 of the Freedom of Information and denied it held the information requested. After considering the case the Commissioner is satisfied that the information requested is not held by the public authority and that the request was dealt with in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal number (EA/2008/0004) has been dismissed.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50152083

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.533147

Stevenage Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Jun 2011

The complainant requested details of the costs incurred by Stevenage Borough Council (the Council) in relation to an Information Tribunal case. The Council issued a refusal notice citing section 14(1) (vexatious) in respect of the request. In this case, having considered the context and history of the request, the Commissioner considers that there are sufficient grounds to uphold the application of section 14(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50367684

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.530617

Dyfed Powys Police (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Jul 2009

The complainant submitted a request to Dyfed-Powys Police for various information relating to a specific operation it carried out. A response to the request was not provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that the police force failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) and (b) of the Act and must now do so within 35 calendar days of the date of this notice. The Commissioner found that Dyfed-Powys Police breached section 10(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50248822

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.532089

Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jul 2009

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) to the Heart of England NHS Trust (the Trust) for a copy of the report into Breast Surgery Practice that was presented to the Board on 29 October 2007 by Mr Ian Cuncliffe, Medical Director for Surgery. The Trust refused the complainant’s request as it stated that the information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 30 and section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner has reviewed the withheld information and considers that the Trust correctly applied the section 40(2) exemption to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner did not therefore consider the Trust’s application of the section 30 exemption any further. The Commissioner does however consider that the Trust breached sections 17(1)(b) and (c) in its handling of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50208265

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.532094

Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Jul 2009

The complainant requested copies of statements which were allegedly taken from key members of staff by the public authority during the course of the investigation of a complaint she had made. The public authority denied it held the information requested. The Commissioner finds that the public authority does hold statements matching the complainant’s request and therefore finds the public authority in breach of section 1(1)(a). He has ordered the public authority to issue another response in accordance with section1 (1) and (2) of the Act. The Commissioner additionally finds the public authority in breach of section 10(1) for failing to confirm it held the information requested within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50222757

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.532096

Nottingham City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 11 Jun 2009

The complainant requested legal advice which the council obtained in respect of a piece of land called the Arboretum in Nottingham. The council initially claimed that the exemptions in sections 42 and 43 of the Freedom of Information Act applied. The Commissioner told the council that the information should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the Regulations) and the council therefore reconsidered the information and applied Regulation 12(5)(b) and Regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner has considered the application of these exceptions. His decision is that Regulation 12(5)(e) was not engaged by the information, and that Regulation 12(5)(b) was engaged, however the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50194691

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.532068

Wandsworth Council (Decision Notice) FS50397482: ICO 16 Nov 2011

The complainant requested information about parking enforcement policies at Wandsworth Council (the council). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to refuse the requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA on the grounds that they were vexatious. He does not require the council to take any further action. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0282 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50397482

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.531123

Redbridge London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 11 Mar 2014

The complainant requested information relating to an employment dispute involving the public authority. The public authority withheld the information on the basis of the exemption at section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to withhold the information withheld on the basis of section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50521496

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.527641

North Norfolk District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested copies of all emails between a named individual and four specified email addresses. North Norfolk District Council (the council) disclosed some emails but contended that the remainder were private emails and not subject to the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld emails are not held by the council under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA as under section 3(2)(a) the information is only held on behalf of another person. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50483056

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.528804

Redbridge London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jan 2014

The complainant requested a copy of a Redbridge Homes report concerning the affairs of a then company employee. London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 40 (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the information on the basis of section 40(1) and 40(2) of FOIA. 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 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50506524

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.527401

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested details of all email communications between particular email addresses, for the period 1st September 2011 to 27th June 2012 inclusive. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has provided the complainant with all of the information it holds relevant to the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50491864

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.528782

Islington Council (Decision Notice) FS50417538: ICO 13 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Islington (the council) relating to aerial works and matters pertaining to them, dating back 6 years. The council disclosed part of the requested information and withheld part of it under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 12. However, the Commissioner finds that the public authority failed to comply with section 17(5) of the FOIA in that it did not cite its reliance on section 12(1) within 20 working days of receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0181 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50417538

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.529739

Aldenham Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Jul 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to the possible development of Salters Field. Aldenham Parish Council (the ‘council’) provided some information but withheld the majority of the requested information because it was ‘commercially sensitive’. The council’s internal review upheld its initial handling of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to demonstrate that the commercial interests exemption was engaged, failed to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held and failed to issue a valid refusal notice. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50436026

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.529596

Islington Council (Decision Notice) FS50430435: ICO 13 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Islington (the council) relating to charges to residents of flats. The council refused to respond to the requests because it considered that they were vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA), the exclusion relating to vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly refused to respond to the requests using section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. EA/2012/0228
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50430435

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.529740

Redbridge London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Jul 2013

The complainant asked whether or not the public authority had acted in response to a list of recommendations which she appended to her request. The public authority provided four written responses to cover some of the points. It provided no recorded information to substantiate its comments. The Commissioner finds that the public authority breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA and he requires it to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: it should provide a fresh response.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50484252

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.528503

Olympic Delivery Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Oct 2013

The complainant requested correspondence between the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and its subcontractor STRI, and also for documents held by STRI about information relating to the reinstatement of Leyton Marsh after its use as a temporary basketball Games-time training venue. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ODA is correct to state that information held solely by STRI is not held by the ODA under the terms of the EIR. However, the Commissioner’s decision is that the ODA misapplied regulation 13 of the EIR (personal data) in some of the redactions it made to the information that was disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a new response to the complainant’s request for correspondence with STRI with redactions made in accordance with the Commissioner’s conclusions.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 3 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0484371

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.528808

Wandsworth Council (Decision Notice) FS50435916: ICO 13 Jun 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to parking enforcement at Wandsworth Council (the council). The Commissioner considers that these requests relate to the same matter as a previous decision notice and therefore the analysis and conclusions reached in that previous notice are applicable in this instance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply the vexatious exclusion to these requests. However, it was in breach of its procedural obligations but the Commissioner does not require the council to take any further action. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435916

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.529589

National Archives (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Oct 2013

The complainant requested copies of two closed files at The National Archives (TNA). TNA disclosed some information from both files but withheld the remaining information on the basis of the exemptions at sections 37(1)(a), 40(2) and 41(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA was entitled to withhold the remaining information (referred to as the disputed information in this notice) on the basis of the exemption at section 37(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require TNA to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 37 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50499333

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.528799

Redbridge London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 21 May 2013

The complainant requested a copy of the London Borough of Redbridge’s (the ‘Council’) Special Educational Needs (SEN) policy and asked whether the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) has a policy for managing long-term health conditions for children and young people. The Council provided a copy of its SEN policy and advised that it did not hold the requested LSCB policy. The Information Commissioner (the ‘Commissioner’) has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided all the information it holds in relation to the request. He does not require the Council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50481713

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.528300

N and Aberdeen City Council: SIC 14 Dec 2012

Mr N requested from Aberdeen City Council (the Council) certain information relative to specific offender programmes. The Council failed to respond but, following a review, informed Mr N that certain information was not held, providing an explanation. Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted this position.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 212 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.470176

M and Aberdeen City Council: SIC 14 Dec 2012

Programme information – Mr M requested from Aberdeen City Council (the Council) information relative to a specific offender programme. The Council failed to respond but, following a review, provided certain information to Mr M and stated that certain other information was not held. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had provided Mr M with all of the relevant information it held.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 210 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.470174

Neilson v Laugharne: CA 1981

A claim was made against the Chief Constable of Lancashire for trespass, wrongful imprisonment, false arrest and assault. The Chief Constable’s response to the letter before action was to write to the plaintiff’s solicitors stating he had decided to call for an investigation under section 49 of the Police Act 1964, that the investigating officer would be contacting them and the plaintiff, and that the question of compensation would be considered at the conclusion of the investigation. The defendant claimed that, save for the plaintiff’s own statement, statements taken from the plaintiff and a number of other people were protected on public interest grounds and by litigation privilege. The affidavit in support of the public interest claim was by the deputy chief constable. That in support of the claim of litigation privilege was by a common law clerk who stated that the dominant purpose of the investigating officer’s inquiry was to obtain evidence for the defence to the action.
Held: The claim to public interest immunity succeeded but that to litigation privilege did not. The court preferred to rely on the Chief Constable’s initial letter rather than the clerk’s affidavit. A police investigation is not part of the administration of justice.
Oliver LJ stated that the Chief Constable’s letter to the plaintiff’s solicitors demonstrated that the dominant purpose of the investigation was the statutory purpose and that had its dominant purpose been to provide material for the threatened legal proceedings it was a very tricky letter indeed because it in effect invited the prospective plaintiff to make a statement to the representative of the prospective defendant under the guise of carrying out a statutory inquiry.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Oliver and O’Connor LJJ

Citations:

[1981] QB 736, [1981] 1 All ER 829, [1981] 2 WLR 537

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Peach v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 1986
Statements made to the police about the death of Mr Blair Peach should be disclosed to his mother in her action against the police because, although they were made partly for the purpose of a complaint against the police and so would to that extent, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.451299

Morison v Moat: 20 Aug 1851

A servant, Moat, sought to use a secret formula of his employer’s. The plaintiff requested an injunction to restrain use of the formula.
Held: The Vice Chancellor reiterated the principles, as to which he said there was ‘no doubt’, adding: ‘The Defendant admits that the secret was communicated to him by Thomas Moat . . The question then is whether there was an equity against him; and I am of opinion that there was. It was clearly a breach of faith and of contract on the part of Thomas Moat to communicate the secret. The Defendant derives under that breach of faith and of contract, and I think he can gain no title by it . . the cases of Tipping v Clarke and Prince Albert v Strange shew that the equity prevails against parties deriving under the breach of contract or duty.
It might indeed be different if the Defendant was a purchaser for value of the secret without notice of any obligation affecting it; and the Defendant’s case was attempted to be put upon this ground . . but I do not think that this view of the case can avail him . . So far as the secret is concerned he is a mere volunteer deriving under a breach of trust or of contract.’

Judges:

Sir George Turner VC

Citations:

(1851) 9 Hare 241, [1851] EngR 790, (1851) 68 ER 492

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Morison v Moat 1852
Affirmed . .
Cited – Lord Ashburton v Pape CA 1913
Pape’s bankruptcy discharge was opposed by Lord Ashburton. He subpoenaed Brooks, a clerk to Lord Ashburton’s solicitor and obtained privileged letters written by Lord Ashburton to Mr Nocton, which Pape proposed to use. Pape and Brooks had colluded. . .
Approved – Lamb v Evans CA 1893
The plaintiff printed and published a multi-lingual European trade directory, engaging the defendants as commission agents to solicit paid entries for the directory. The businessmen could, if they wished, supply wood blocks or other materials from . .
Cited – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.270393

Somerset County Council (Local Government): ICO 23 Jun 2020

The complainant requested planning related information in relation to a proposed housing scheme. Somerset County Council (the ‘Council’) provided some information but withheld the remainder citing Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR, the exception for internal communications. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council revisited the withheld information and subsequently disclosed a letter and emails which it said did not constitute ‘internal communications’ as they had been shared externally with the developer. The Council maintained that Regulation 12(4)(e) applied to the two remaining memos in scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to consider this request under the EIR. She also finds that it has applied Regulation 12(4)(e) to the remaining withheld information correctly. She concludes that the weight of the public interest lies in maintaining the Council’s application of this exception. However, she finds that the Council breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to respond to the request within the statutory 20 working days’ time limit. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fer0893808

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.653693

Mr N and Scottish Ministers: SIC 10 May 2019

While developing their ‘Hate has no home in Scotland’ campaign, the Ministers showed drafts of posters to some third party organisations. The Ministers were subsequently asked for the draft posters, but decided the posters were exempt from disclosure. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Ministers were entitled to refuse to disclose the drafts.

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 073 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.639604

Islington Council (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Nov 2011

The complainant wrote to the London Borough of Islington (the council) and requested all information held by the council which relates to the late [name redacted]. The Information Commissioner’s (the Commissioner) decision is that the council did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA in that it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50398402

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.531081

Islington Council (Decision Notice) FS50430436: ICO 13 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Islington (the council) relating to charges to residents of flats. The council refused to respond to the requests because it considered that they were vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA), the exclusion relating to vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly refused to respond to the requests using section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0228 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50430436

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.529741

Wandsworth Council (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Mar 2011

The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Wandsworth concerning documents relating to the Trewint Street bridge over the River Wandle. The public authority stated that it had released many details since the correspondence began between the two parties on this issue in 1983. It further said that much of the information was not held or was a matter for the complainant to seek his own legal advice and was outside the scope of the Act. The Commissioner has decided that the authority has released all the information it holds on this matter and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). However, the Commissioner also found procedural breaches of section 10(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50293203

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.530403

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (Decision Notice) FS50146608: ICO 27 Jul 2009

The complainant requested a management investigation report and supporting documents, undertaken in response to allegations made by a whistleblower into the care practices at one of the authority’s children’s homes. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council refused to supply the reports claiming reliance on section 40(2), 30(2) and in the alternative 31(1). When reviewing its decision, the Council agreed to release some sections of the reports after redaction of information it still believed was exempt. The Commissioner has decided that section 40(2) is engaged in relation to all of the withheld information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50146608

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.532114

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (Decision Notice) FS50113479: ICO 27 Jul 2009

The complainant requested two reports undertaken in response to allegations made by whistleblowers into the care practices in certain children’s homes in the Wakefield area. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council refused to supply the reports claiming reliance on section 30(2)(a)(iii) with reference to 31(2)(a) to (d) and (j). The Council also indicated that in the alternative it would seek to rely on section 31(1)(g) with respect to 31(2)(a) to (d) and (j). The Commissioner has decided that the neither of the two reports are exempt under section 30(2)(a)(iii) and 31(2)(a). The Commissioner is content that section 31(1)(g) can be applied to both the management investigation report and the NSPCC report with reference to 31(2)(b). The Commissioner finds that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure of the information in certain sections of both the NSPCC report and the management investigation report. The Commissioner found that this information should be disclosed with some details of staff names redacted under section 40(2) of the Act. The Council also breached section 17 by issuing an inadequate refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50113479

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.532113

Islington Council (Decision Notice) FS50437482: ICO 13 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Islington (the council) relating to charges to residents of flats. The council refused to respond to the requests because it considered that they were vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA), the exclusion relating to vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly refused to respond to the requests using section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0228 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50437482

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.529742

Islington Council (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Dec 2011

The complainant requested information relating to the front gardens of a number of flats being fenced off to create individual gardens. The London Borough of Islington (the council) said that it did not hold the information requested. During the Commissioner’s investigation, it conceded that it held some information and it provided that to the complainant. The complainant was not satisfied and considered that more information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. However he found that the authority had breached its obligation to offer reasonable advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 9 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50373151

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.531170

Redbridge London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Sep 2007

The complainant requested from the London Borough of Redbridge (‘the Council’) confirmation of the dates of ingoing and outgoing correspondence taken directly from what he referred to as ‘the Leisure Department Correspondence Database’ (‘the database’). The complainant’s belief in the existence of the database was based on telephone conversations between himself and officers in the Leisure Department which the complainant recorded. Although the Council dealt with the request as a general enquiry, it did communicate to the complainant that the database did not exist and therefore satisfied its obligations under section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Council maintained this position during the course of the investigation and, despite the complainant’s recordings of telephone conversations, the Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’) is satisfied that the database does not exist and therefore the information requested is not held.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50132656

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.533073

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Sep 2009

The complainant has, over a period of three years, made a series of requests stemming from Wakefield Metropolitan District Council’s application of its high-hedges policy. Given the extent of its communications with the complainant about this issue, the Council deemed the latest of the requests as vexatious pursuant to section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Whilst the Commissioner believes that this matter was finely balanced, he has found that section 14(1) does apply and therefore has not upheld the complaint. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0082 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50178424

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.532197

Islington Council (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Mar 2013

The complainant has requested information about a cricket pitch and some fencing. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the EIR in that it did not apply the correct legislation when handling the request. The Information Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a fresh response under the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50458226

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.528108

Wandsworth Council (Decision Notice) FS50432122: ICO 13 Jun 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to parking enforcement at Wandsworth Council (‘the council’). The Commissioner considers that these requests relate to the same matter as a previous decision notice and therefore the analysis and conclusions reached in that previous notice are applicable in this instance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply the vexatious exclusion to these requests. However, it was in breach of its procedural obligations but the Commissioner does not require the council to take any further action. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50432122

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.529588

Wandsworth Council (Decision Notice) FS50435926: ICO 13 Jun 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to parking enforcement at Wandsworth Council (‘the council’). The Commissioner considers that these requests relate to the same matter as a previous decision notice and therefore the analysis and conclusions reached in that previous notice are applicable in this instance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply the vexatious exclusion to these requests. However, it was in breach of its procedural obligations but the Commissioner does not require the council to take any further action. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435926

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.529591

Islington Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Mar 2013

The complainant requested information on the council draft proposal to redevelop an area of Holly Park in Islington, London. The council provided some information but withheld other information under the exceptions in Regulations 12(4)(a), (information not held), 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and Regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion or unfinished documents). It also applied Regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) to one part of the request. The complainant accepted that some information she asked for was not held, and so asked the council to consider information which it did hold. The council applied other exceptions to this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Islington Borough Council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(e) as correspondence between the council and the ALMO (Islington Homes), could not be considered internal communications for the purposes of the Regulations. It was however correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(a) as regards sections of part 3 of the request. The Commissioner therefore requires the council to disclose the information falling within the scope of part 3 of the request to the complainant which it holds. The Commissioner has also decided that the council correctly applied the exceptions in Regulations 12(4)(b) to part 4 of the request and 12(4)(d) to part 1 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public interest in the above rests with the exceptions being maintained. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information it holds falling within the scope of part 3 of the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.4.d – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0453309

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.528107

Wandsworth Council (Decision Notice) FS50435920: ICO 13 Jun 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to parking enforcement at Wandsworth Council (‘the council’). The Commissioner considers that these requests relate to the same matter as a previous decision notice and therefore the analysis and conclusions reached in that previous notice are applicable in this instance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply the vexatious exclusion to these requests. However, it was in breach of its procedural obligations but the Commissioner does not require the council to take any further action. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435920

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.529590

Islington Council (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested the rental income received from a restaurant in Finsbury Square in London. The London Borough of Islington (the Council) refused to provide this information citing section 40(2) (unfair disclosure of personal data) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied upon section 40(2).No steps are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50507547

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.528997

Wandsworth Council (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Mar 2012

The complainant has requested all documents relating to the validity of a VAT clause within a lease. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wandsworth Council has correctly applied the exemption for legal professional privilege and the exemption where the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. However, the Commissioner found that Wandsworth Council took too long to respond to the request. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0101 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50419718

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.529366

South Bucks District Council (Local Government): ICO 12 Jun 2020

1. The complainant has requested information about noise mitigation measures in relation to a planning application. South Buckinghamshire District Council explained that it did not hold the requested information.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, South Buckinghamshire District Council does not hold the requested information. She therefore considers that it has cited regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIR appropriately. The Commissioner also considers that South Buckinghamshire District Council has cited regulation 12(4)(c) (requests formulated in too general a manner) of the EIR appropriately. However, the Commissioner considers that South Buckinghamshire District Council has breached regulation 5(2) (Duty to make available environmental information on request).
3. The Commissioner does not require South Buckinghamshire District Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(c): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fer0837661

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.653695

Elliott v Lloyds TSB Bank: 24 Apr 2012

Leeds County Court – The court considered the extent of the obligation imposed by s 8(2) of the 1998 Act.
Held: The data controller is only required under the section to supply the individual with such personal data as is found after a reasonable and proportionate search.

Judges:

Behrens HHJ

Citations:

Unreported 24 April 2012

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998 8(2)

Citing:

Cited – Ezsias v The Welsh Ministers QBD 23-Nov-2007
The Claimant claimed under Section 7(9) of the 1998 Act for failures to disclose data to him following several requests. He sought (i) a declaration that the National Assembly had failed to comply with their obligations under the 1998 Act, (ii) . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dawson-Damer and Others v Taylor Wessing Llp and Others ChD 6-Aug-2015
The clamants sought orders under the 1998 Act for disclosure of documents about them by the defendant solicitors and others. The defendants said that the request would require the consideration of a very large number of documents, considering in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.551033

National Patient Safety Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Feb 2011

The complainant requested a considerable amount of information about the public authority’s recommendation not to extend his appointment as an unpaid volunteer beyond a five year term. The public authority provided some information and withheld other information. The complainant referred three items to the Commissioner. The public authority’s position was that it did not hold any further relevant recorded information for the first item and that it was entitled to withhold the last two. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority disclosed all the recorded information it held for the last two items. The Commissioner did not consider them further. For the first item, the Commissioner has determined (after further information was disclosed) that the public authority did not hold any further relevant recorded information at the date of the request. He therefore upholds the public authority’s position. He did find some procedural breaches of the Act, but requires no remedial steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0066 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50314583

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.530226

Welsh Government (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jun 2011

The complainant requested copies of correspondence to, from or on behalf an Assembly Member concerning Powys Fadog and Assembly negotiations relating to the River Lodge Hotel, Llangollen. The Welsh Assembly Government (Welsh Government) disclosed some information but withheld other information under sections 31(2)(b), 40(2) and 43(2). During the Commissioner’s investigation the Welsh Government disclosed additional information but maintained its reliance on section 40(2) in relation to some information. The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that the Welsh Government correctly applied Section 40(2) to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner identified a number of procedural shortcomings in the way the Welsh Government handled the complainant’s request but requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50318915

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.530631

Legal Services Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information from the Legal Services Commission (LSC) about solutions to avoid the closure of a charity involved in the provision of legal advice and representation to immigrants and asylum seekers. The LSC withheld the requested information citing the personal information and commercial interests exemptions (sections 40(2) and 43) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the LSC was not entitled to rely on the commercial interests exemption. However, he upholds the citing of section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose to the complainant the information withheld under the commercial interests exemption.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50439886

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.529744

In re a local authority (Inquiry: restraint on publication); A Local Authority v A Health Authority and A: FD 27 Nov 2003

The authority had carried out an inquiry into its handling of an application for a care order. It sought to restrain republication of the report.
Held: There were competing requirements under the Convention. Any jurisdiction to restrain publication must be exercised in such circumstances only to protect the children involved. The scope to act for adults under a disability by letters patent or parens patriae had lapsed, but an inherent jurisdiction remained. Pending any statutory creation, the court would act through the common law doctrine of necessity. Here the action was required for protective rather than a custodial jurisdiction, and again the competing interests under the Convention had to be weighed. In both cases the requirements were met. For the children, and injunction was continued, and for the adults one was made. The balance came down in favour of protecting vulnerable adults by preventing publication of a local authority report: ‘They have had considerable and distressing disruption of their lives and are, as set out in the report, vulnerable. A period of peace, stability and a chance to settle down again after the very real upset of their lives is threatened by the likely intense media cover if this report is published. They are all under some disability but not such, as far as I know, as to prevent possibly all of them, but certainly at least 4 of them, from understanding the impact of press and other media intrusion. That intrusion would affect their daily lives and would be very likely to be disruptive, distressing and contrary to the need for them to settle back in the home. They clearly have rights under article 8 which are engaged and would be breached if the report is published. I am satisfied that publication of the report would be deeply damaging and detrimental to their welfare.
The factors supporting the rights of the vulnerable adults under article 8 have to be balanced against the right of the local authority to publish under article 10. I have found that it would be lawful on their behalf to interfere with the article 10 right of freedom of expression. I have considered very carefully whether to exercise the court’s discretion in favour of the vulnerable adults would be a disproportionate response to the contents of the report, having regard to the importance attached to article 10 by section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am also fully aware of the factors in favour of not restraining publication of volume 1. I am satisfied, however, that the balancing exercise comes down in favour of recognising the importance of the protection of the vulnerable adults by the granting of a declaration to that effect.’

Judges:

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P

Citations:

[2003] EWHC Fam 2746, Times 05-Dec-2003, Gazette 22-Jan-2004, [2004] EWHC 2746 (Fam), [2004] Fam 96, [2004] Fam Law 179, [2004] 1 FCR 113, [2004] 1 All ER 480, [2004] 2 WLR 926, (2004) 7 CCL Rep 426, (2004) 76 BMLR 210, [2004] BLGR 117, [2004] 1 FLR 541

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) HL 4-May-1989
Where a patient lacks capacity, there is the power to provide him with whatever treatment or care is necessary in his own best interests. Medical treatment can be undertaken in an emergency even if, through a lack of capacity, no consent had been . .

Cited by:

Cited – E v Channel Four, News International Ltd and St Helens Borough Council FD 1-Jun-2005
The applicant sought an order restraining publication by the defendants of material, saying she did not have capacity to consent to the publication. She suffered a multiple personality disorder. She did herself however clearly wish the film to be . .
Cited – In re PS (an Adult), Re; City of Sunderland v PS by her litigation friend the Offcial Solcicitor and CA; Re PS (Incapacitated or Vulnerable Adult) FD 9-Mar-2007
The patient an elderly lady with limited mental capacity was to be returned from hospital, but her daughter said she was to come home. The local authority sought to prevent this, wanting to return her to a residential unit where she had lived for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Administrative, Media, Local Government, Human Rights, Information

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.188626

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health): ICO 2 Nov 2020

The complainant requested from the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) information regarding the orthodontic procurement process run by NHS England. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires NHS England to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. NHS England 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 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO IC-45122-Z0R4

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.656206

Richard Huish College (Education): ICO 12 Jun 2020

Through three, multi-part requests the complainant requested information associated with car parking matters. Richard Huish College (‘the College’) released some information and released further information during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The College breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not communicate to the complainant all the relevant information it holds within 20 working days of receiving the requests. The College has now complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA and the Commissioner does not require it to take any remedial steps.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50883423

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.653689

Gloucestershire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Aug 2013

The complainant requested copies of all photographs relating to a particular planning application and any associated or supporting documentation relating to the photographs. The council said that it wished to withhold some information using the exception under regulation 12(5)(f) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR). This exception concerns adverse effects to the interests of the person who provided the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information was correctly withheld because it is excepted under regulation 13(1) of the EIR. This exception relates to third party personal data. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0477882

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.528566

Redbridge London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Jul 2012

The complainant requested information relating to the way in which the London Borough of Redbridge (‘the council’) handled a previous information request. The council initially said that the request was vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’). However, the council subsequently complied with the request following a separate decision notice issued by the Commissioner. The council withheld some information on the basis that it was exempt under section 42(1) of the FOIA, the exemption relating to legal professional privilege. The complainant asked the Commissioner to make a decision on whether the council breached the FOIA by its initial reliance on section 14(1), whether it had incorrectly relied on section 42(1) and whether the council had identified all the relevant information that it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly applied section 42(1) to some of the information. However, some information was also incorrectly withheld using this exemption and the Commissioner has ordered the disclosure of that information in this notice. The Commissioner found breaches of section 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50431783

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.529662

Ilminster Town Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Aug 2013

The complainants have requested various information in relation to a cemetery wall that borders the complainant’s property. The request was refused by Ilminster Town Council (council) under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). However the Commissioner considered the requested information to be environmental information and should have been refused under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged to the request and therefore the council were correct to refuse to supply the information. The Commissioner has also found that the council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by not providing its response to the complainants within 20 working days and has breached regulation 9(1) by not providing appropriate advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainants with appropriate advice and assistance with regard to the electronic information that can be provided to enable them to make appropriate refined requests if necessary. 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.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 9 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0482270

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.528579

University of East London (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jun 2012

The complainant has requested information from the University of East London (‘the University’) regarding the University Vice-Chancellor’s expenses for the financial year 2010-2011. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 12(1) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50421664

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.529586

Department of Justice Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Aug 2013

The complainant requested information relating to the approval of a disposal schedule. The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) claimed that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NICTS does not hold the requested information, therefore he does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50486072

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.528560

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Jul 2012

The complainant requested information relating to remittances made by a particular firm of bailiffs. The council’s position was that it did not hold the information requested, although it did provide a response to one of the requests by obtaining information from the firm involved. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0157 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50436154

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.529599

Scotland Office (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Apr 2008

The complainant made two requests to the Office of the Advocate General for Scotland (part of the Scotland Office) for legal advice the Advocate General and his office may have produced in relation to legal proceedings which he was a party to. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether it held the legal advice specified in the first request under section 42 of the Act. It refused to confirm or deny whether it held the legal advice specified in the second request under sections 35 and 42 of the Act. During the course of the investigation the public authority informed the Commissioner that, in respect of the first request, it was no longer refusing to confirm or deny whether it held the legal advice. It confirmed that it held the advice but refused to disclose the content under section 42 of the Act. In respect of the second request it informed the Commissioner that it no longer wished to rely on section 42 but was continuing to rely on section 35 in support of its decision to refuse to confirm or deny. Having investigated the complaint the Commissioner has found that the information specified in the first request was exempt under section 42 of the Act and the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption but that the public authority breached section (1)(1)(a) of the Act by failing to confirm or deny to the complainant if the information was held. In respect of the second request the Commissioner found that section 35 was engaged and the public interest favoured maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny.
FOI 35: Not upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50146380

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.532612

Hackney London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Aug 2013

The complainant requested information about homeless individuals in the London Borough of Hackney. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Hackney has breached sections 1 and 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it has not provided a response to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a response to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50500531

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.528569

Office for National Statistics (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Aug 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to the Office of National Statistic’s (ONS) development of an ‘in-house’ records management system. The Commissioner’s decision is that ONS has provided the complainant with all of the information it holds relevant to the scope of the requests. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50490290

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.528599

Ealing London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Aug 2009

The complainant requested statistics from the Council on the number of children taken into care, adopted, placed on a special guardianship order and placed on a residence order broken down by age and month. The Council refused to disclose the information under section 40(2) of the Act ‘personal data’. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the requested information is not personal data, and that therefore section 40(2) is not engaged. Therefore he requires that the withheld information be released.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50222631

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.532128

Wolverhampton City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Jun 2012

The complainant requested information about agencies responsible for the upkeep of an estate including ground maintenance of footpaths and tarmac. To date, Wolverhampton City Council has not provided a response to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wolverhampton City Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in failing to respond within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner requires Wolverhampton City Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide a response compliant with section 1(1) of the FOIA, or provide a refusal notice compliant with section 17 of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50438836

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.529593

Herefordshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Aug 2013

The complainant requested a copy of an audit report which KPMG produced on behalf of the council. After initially being provided with a copy of the report the complainant asked the council to provide her with a copy which included recommendations which she understood that KMPG had included with the report. The council then provided a copy of a report to the complainant which included recommendations, but clarified that this was a draft report. It said that the final report did not include any recommendations. The complainant wrote back to the council stating that the recommendations which had been provided to her as part of the draft report did not match recommendations which KPMG had described to her as being included in the report. She states that KPMG verbally described the recommendations to her over the telephone. The council however confirmed that the recommendations disclosed to her were the recommendations which it received from KPMG with the draft report. Having received assurances from the council that the information it disclosed was the correct information the Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the council has provided the complainant with the information falling within the scope of her request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50475614

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.528573