Category: Information

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 20 Oct 2016

The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (DfE) relating to the proposal of the Weald of Kent Grammar School (Weald of Kent) for the development of an annexe in Sevenoaks. The complaint to the Commissioner concerns the DfE’s refusal to comply with two requests. The Commissioner has initially had to decide how the requests under consideration should be interpreted and has found that they only cover the business information submitted to the DfE by the Weald of Kent. The DfE considered that this fell within the ‘prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs’ exemption to disclosure in section 36(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner has determined the exemption is engaged but concluded that on balance the public interest favours disclosure. She therefore requires the DfE to disclose the requested information.
FOI 36: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50613829

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.572856

Her Majestys Revenue and Customs (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Jun 2005

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

Pensions Ombudsman (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jun 2005

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a personal file. The Pensions Ombudsman did provide the information but failed to do so within twenty working days. The Decision Notice identified the breach of the statutory time limit but did not specify any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50067858

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.533225

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 21 Feb 2019

The complainant has requested a copy of the arrangements with the Permanent Secretary and Cabinet Office to ensure that processes were in place to prevent any conflict of interest between Lord Theodore Agnew’s ministerial role and his charitable interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education (DfE) has correctly applied the exemptions at section 35(1)(d) and section 41(1)(a) and (b) of the FOIA. However, the DfE breached section 17(3) as it did not provide the complainant with public interest arguments associated with its application of section 35 within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 17(3): Complaint upheld FOI 41: Complaint not upheld FOI 35(1)(d): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50766060

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.634967

Norfolk Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jun 2005

ICO The complainant requested information on the cost to Norfolk Constabulary of providing security for a former Prime Minister and alleged that the information had been withheld. Originally the Constabulary relied on exemptions relating to law enforcement and health and safety to refuse the request. However, the request was for information on the cost to the Constabulary of providing security. Since the actual cost was met by the Home Office and the cost to the Constabulary was therefore nil, the Constabulary did not, in fact, hold any recorded information on the cost to themselves. Consequently, the Decision Notice stated that there was not a breach of section 1 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FAC0064577

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.533224

West Cheshire College (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Jun 2005

ICO Complainant requested information relating to a proposed move by the College. The College failed to respond within 20 working days but subsequently informed the complainant that the information was held by the Land Registry. Although the Decision Notice did not identify any steps to be taken, the College were advised how to deal with any future requests where information is either not held by them or is reasonably accessible by other means.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50068238

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.533226

Home Office (Central Government, Local Government): ICO 15 Sep 2020

The complainant has requested a copy of a contract for the kennelling of stray dogs. Manchester City Council disclosed a redacted copy of the information, withholding details under the exemption for commercial interests – section 43(2) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation Manchester City Council dropped its reliance on section 43(2) on disclosed the information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Manchester City Council disclosed the information outside the statutory time limit and breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO IC-46952-W4N9

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.656056

Norwich City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 25 Jun 2015

The complainant requested information relating to benefit fraud allegations and investigations from Norwich City Council (‘the council’). The council refused to provide the information, relying on the exemptions under section 40(2) and 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’). These exemptions relate to personal data and information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council should have said that the majority of the requested information was not held. It correctly relied on the exemption under section 40(2) to withhold some of the information however other information was incorrectly withheld using section 40(2) and 41(1). The Commissioner found breaches of section 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b), 10(1) and 17(1) of the FOIA. There is a confidential annex associated with this decision. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the information to the complainant in response to request (a) ‘How many cases of apparent fraud reported concerning sheltered housing tenants with a 15 mile radius from City Hall?’ 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 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 40: Partly upheld FOI 41: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50550150

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.555520

Department for Education and Skills (Decision Notice): ICO 22 May 2007

The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is that the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has partially failed to comply with its obligations under section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner requires DfES to disclose the information previously withheld under section 35 of the Act but decided it had acted correctly in withholding information under section 42. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 35: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50085945

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.532928

West Rainton and Leamside Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Jul 2011

The complainant requested information about correspondence and communications sent by the public authority to specified parties, and associated matters. The public authority responded but did not disclose the requested information. The Commissioner finds that the public authority does not hold the requested information but, by its failure to confirm or deny that the information was held, it has breached section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50348832

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.530703

Driving Standards Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 23 May 2007

The complainant requested information from the Driving Standards Agency (the ‘DSA’) relating to the number of clicks permitted in the Hazard Perception Test of the UK Driving Theory test before the algorithm is activated. Initially the DSA did not treat the request as a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). Following the involvement of the Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’) the DSA considered the matter under the provisions of the Act. The DSA further delayed before issuing a refusal notice, which stated that it was withholding the information under section 36 (2) (c) of the Act. The Commissioner upholds the DSA’s decision to withhold the information under section 36 (2) (c) of the Act, however, the Commissioner finds that the DSA breached section 17 of the Act in the handling of the request.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50115678

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.532930

Toshiba Information Systems UK Ltd (Undertakings): ICO 18 Jan 2012

An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Toshiba Information Systems UK Ltd. This follows a web design error that created the potential for unauthorised access to individual’s personal data.

Citations:

[2012] UKICO 2012-47

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.529133

Stafford Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Feb 2011

The complainant requested a copy of all recordings that had been taken in respect of a neighbourhood dispute regarding a complaint about alleged excessive noise emanating from his property. The Council considered the request under the EIR and refused to provide the information citing regulation 12(5)(b). It also informed the complainant that in the event that regulation 12(5)(b) was no longer applicable it would need to consider whether it contained any personal information that would be exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(3). The Commissioner finds that regulation 12(5)(b) was engaged at the time of the request and has not therefore gone on to consider regulation 12(3). The Commissioner also recorded a breach of regulation 14(5)(a) and (b) in the way the request was handled.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0324848

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.530238

Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd: CA 15 Mar 2013

The claimant had obtained judgment in default against the respondent in his claim under the 1998 Act. He now appealed as to the levels of damages to be awarded.

Judges:

Arden, Lloyd, LJJ, Ryder J

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 333

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Damages

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472893

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 21 Jul 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to the new Independent Schools Standards (ISS) and the consultation exercise that was launched by the DfE. The DfE addressed some elements of the request but refused to disclose other information under sections 35(1)(b) and 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has considered both exemptions and finds that both exemptions are engaged for the information they were applied to. In both cases, he has decided that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 35: Not upheld FOI 36: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566201

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.555579

Brough v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Jan 2013

The claimant said that he had been labelled a trouble maker and his details placed on a database made available to companies who subscribed so that they would avoid hiring him.

Citations:

52962/11 – Communicated Case, [2013] ECHR 336

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

Human Rights, Information

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472611

Turner v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc: CA 24 Mar 1998

The plaintiff complained as to the provision of references by his bank. The bank said he had given an implied permission through the bank which had made the request. Later changes in the bankers code of practice would have required explicit written consent.
Held: The bank had failed in its duty of disclosure of the practices current at the time, and appeared to have a positive policy of concealing the fact that it had given a reference.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 529, [1999] Lloyds Rep Banking 231

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Mentioned – Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd CA 1989
A partner in a firm of solicitors stole money from them, and spent it gambling with the defendants. The firm sued also their banker, who had been held to be aware of the defaulting partner’s weaknesses and activities.
Held: The solicitors . .
Cited – Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England CA 1924
The court considered the duty of confidentiality owed by a banker to his client. Bankes LJ said: ‘At the present day I think it may be asserted with confidence that the duty is a legal one arising out of contract, and that the duty is not absolute . .
Cited – Barclay’s Bank v Bank of England 1985
The court rejected an argument that because it was the usage of bankers to clear cheques through the clearing house system, the obligation of a presenting banker to present the cheque for collection at the branch of the paying bank where the drawer . .

Cited by:

See Also – Turner v Royal Bank of Scotland plc CA 6-May-1999
The bank replied to several enquiries as to the customer’s credit status without first seeking the customer’s consent. It claimed that this was general practice at the time.
Held: The practice fell short of being ‘notorious’ or well known, and . .
See Also – Turner v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc CA 23-Jan-2001
The claimant sought damages for an alleged negligent mis-statement by his bankers when giving a reference. He sought leave to appeal.
Held: Leave was refused. The claimant had not established either that the bank had broken its duty of care to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.144007

Scotland Office (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Aug 2011

The complainant requested information relating to any meetings between representatives of the public authority and the Deputy Prime Minister or the Cabinet Office for the period 5 May 2010 to 5 August 2010. The public authority initially responded to this request by citing exemptions from Part II of the Act. However, at internal review stage the public authority altered its position and instead stated that it did not hold information falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner finds that the public authority was correct in stating that this information was not held, but that it breached the Act in failing to advise the complainant of this within 20 working days of receipt of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50378039

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.530787

Sheffield City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Jun 2011

The complainant made a request for information from Sheffield City Council for the curriculum vitae details, application for employment and references of a senior employee. He also requested other details surrounding the recruitment and selection of the same senior employee. The Council disclosed part of the requested information to the complainant but withheld the CV, application, reference details and the names of the selection panel that recruited the employee. During the course of the investigation the Council disclosed the names of the selection panel but continued to withhold the remaining requested information. The Commissioner considers that the Council correctly withheld the remaining information under section 40(2) and requires no other action to be taken. However, the Commissioner also finds that the Council breached section 10(1) in responding late to the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50356624

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.530614

Nottingham City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Jan 2012

The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottingham City Council has correctly applied the exemption in 36(2)(b)(ii) of the Act to the requested information. However, he also finds that the council breached section 10 of the Act by taking more than 20 working days to respond to the complainant’s information request. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0044 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50371162

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.529106

Charity Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 15 May 2007

The complainant asked the public authority for all recorded information held about a charity he managed. The public authority provided some information initially and at the internal review stage, but withheld other information under sections 31, 40 and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). After the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority released further information but continued to withhold details of the identity of a person who had made a complaint about the charity. The Commissioner decided that the public authority was justified in applying section 31 to this information, and that it was not therefore necessary to go on to assess the remaining exemptions cited by the public authority. However, he also decided that there was a breach of section 10(1) of the Act in that the Commission did not respond to the complainant’s request within twenty working days and section 17(7) as the refusal notice was not adequate. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50101614

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.532922

New Forest National Park Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Sep 2009

The complainant’s representative made two requests on her behalf to the New Forest National Park Authority (NPA) for information relating to a planning matter regarding a listed property adjoining her property. The first request was for an internal memorandum held by NPA on the planning enforcement file that set out the situation at the adjoining property, against whose owner NPA had considered, but subsequently decided against, taking planning enforcement action. The second request was for the whole planning enforcement file referenced 06/123 with a comprehensive list of contents and entry dates and details of any removals before disclosure. NPA considered the context and history of the complainant’s and her representative’s dealings with NPA and determined that both requests were manifestly unreasonable. It therefore applied the exception to disclosure provided by regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and refused the requests. Because the requests are clearly linked, the Commissioner decided to issue one Decision Notice covering both requests. He concluded that in both instances regulation 12(4)(b) was engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0092 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FER0237548 and FE

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.532188

Ordnance Survey (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Jun 2011

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to Ordnance Survey (OS) for information relating to ‘Geoid Model OSGM05’ and Ordnance Survey’s policy on answering technical questions. OS provided the complainant with some information relevant to the scope of the request but confirmed that no further information was held. The complainant was not satisfied that no further information was held. The Commissioner considers that no further information is held by OS relevant to the scope of the request other than that which has already been provided to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50361252

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.530600

County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Aug 2011

The complainant made a request for copies of all compromise agreements entered into by the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) with doctors and the reasons why the Trust entered into the compromise agreements. The Trust refused to confirm or deny whether this information is held under section 40(5) and section 43(3) of the Act. The Commissioner considers that the Trust was correct to refuse to confirm or deny whether the information is held under section 40(5) of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0212 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50380576

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.530718

New Forest National Park Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Jul 2010

On 29 June 2009, the complainant wrote to New Forest National Park Authority (NPA) with four questions about its decision not to take planning enforcement action against the complainant’s neighbour. The complainant was unhappy with NPA’s response to questions one and four and, following an internal review by NPA, complained to the Commissioner. During the Commissioner’s investigation and following the decision of the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) to dismiss the complainant’s appeal against a previous Decision Notice. NPA stated that it considered the request to be manifestly unreasonable and that it should have applied the exception to disclosure provided by regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner considered it appropriate to allow the late application of the exception and agreed that the request was manifestly unreasonable and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner found procedural breaches in the way in which NPA handled the request but requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2010/0143 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FER0285305

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.531563

New Forest National Park Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Oct 2012

The complainant has requested a copy of a map, the New Forest National Park Authority’s 2008 back up grazing plan. The New Forest National Park Authority refused to disclose the information because the information is incomplete, under the exception provided at regulation 12(4)(d) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), and also because disclosure would adversely affect the interests of the persons supplying the information, under regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the New Forest National Park Authority has correctly refused the requested information under the provisions of regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0244 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0446596

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.529942

New Forest National Park Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Jan 2012

The complainant requested information as to whether a particular named individual had had input into two letters that had been written to him by the New Forest National Park Authority (NPA). The NPA refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) as manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NPA was correct to apply regulation 12(4)(b) to the request and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception in this instance. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken by the NPA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0402796

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.529101

Queens University Belfast (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Jan 2012

The complainant asked Queen’s University Belfast for a copy of an administrative review undertaken by Deloitte regarding the contract management and procurement arrangements for the Belfast Festival at Queen’s. The University refused to disclose that information, citing the exemptions under sections 31(1)(g) (prejudice to a public authority’s functions) and section 40 (personal data) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied the exemption under section 31(1)(g) for the purposes set out in sections 31(2)(a) and (b) (the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law and the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper). He considers that section 31(1)(g) applies to all of the requested information and therefore orders no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50368075

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.529114

Southwark Council (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Jan 2012

The complainant requested information from Southwark Council (the council) about the outcome of a review into the methodology for an increase in court costs and an explanation of any difference in methodology. The public authority refused to provide the information on the grounds that the request was vexatious. The Information Commissioner’s (the Commissioner’s) decision is that the council was correct to find the request vexatious. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0064 allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50406303

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.529127

New Forest National Park Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Feb 2012

The complainant has requested copies of a legal file on a criminal prosecution which was begun by the New Forest National Park Authority against a company. The NFPNA stated that the information was exempt under Regulations 12(5)(b) (course of justice), 13, (personal data) and 12(4)(e) (internal communications). The Commissioner’s decision is that New Forest National Park Authority has correctly applied the exceptions in Regulation 12(5)(b) and regulation 13 to the information. Having found this he has not gone on to consider the application or Regulation 12(4)(e).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0400054

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.529213

Commission v Bavarian Lager: ECJ 29 Jun 2010

ECJ Appeal – Access to the documents of the institutions – Document concerning a meeting held in the context of a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations -Protection of personal data – Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

Judges:

V. Skouris, P

Citations:

[2010] EUECJ C-28/08, C-28/08, [2011] Bus LR 867

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Commission v Bavarian Lager ECJ 15-Oct-2009
ECJ Opinion – Appeal – Access to documents of Community institutions -Document relating to a meeting held in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations.
‘It should be noted that in paragraph 104 the . .
Cited – Criminal proceedings against Lindqvist ECJ 6-Nov-2003
Mrs Lindqvist had set up an internet site for her local parish containing information about some of her colleagues in the parish. She gave names, jobs, hobbies and in one case some of the person’s employment and medical details. The Court decided . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471153

Roberts v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police: CA 16 Jan 2013

The parties had settled a previous dispute with a Tomlin order including the clause: ‘Mr Roberts accepts the above terms in full and final satisfaction of his claims in the said action number 1OL90045 and of any claim or potential claim which he has or may have up to the date hereof against GMP, or any of his officers or employees howsoever arising under statute, common law or otherwise.’ The claimant now sought leave to appeal against rejection of a further claim in respect of data held by the police on him.
Held: Leave was refused. The clause was indeed wide, but clearly incorporated the facts now complained of. An appeal was bound to fail.

Judges:

Longmore LJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 60

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Police

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.470937

London Borough of Waltham Forest (Local Government): ICO 4 Dec 2020

The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) seeking information about how it processed FOI requests. The Council responded to most parts of the request, however it failed to address one part of it. The complainant contacted the Commissioner to complain about the Council’s failure to address this part of his request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council provided the complainant with a response to this outstanding part of the request. The complainant did not seek to dispute this response but he was unhappy with the length of time it took the Council to respond to this part of his request. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to all parts of the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO IC-44560

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.657928

Cheshire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Mar 2011

The complainant asked the public authority to provide information relating to an alleged rape case and any associated court case details. Although Cheshire Constabulary initially confirmed it did not hold the requested information, the subject matter of the case prompted the Commissioner to consider whether the public authority should instead have given a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ response. The Commissioner finds that confirmation or denial would disclose personal data and that the disclosure of this personal data would be in breach of the first data protection principle. The exemption provided by section 40(5)(b)(i) should therefore have been applied. The public authority is not required to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0098 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50349980

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.530293

Bonnier Audio AB v Perfect Communication Sweden AB: ECJ 19 Apr 2012

ECJ The applicants, publishers with exclusive rights to reproduce etc, certain audio books, claimed that their exclusive rights had been infringed by the public distribution of the works without their consent by means of a file transport protocol server which allowed file sharing and data transfer between computers connected to the internet. The applicants applied to a district court for disclosure of the IP addresses from which it was assumed that the files in question had been sent. The national measure permitted an internet service provider to be ordered to give a copyright holder information on the subscriber to whom the internet service provider had supplied a specific IP address which was used in the infringement of the copyright. The ECJ was asked whether this was precluded by Directive 2006/24.
Held: The Swedish domestic legislation: ‘enables the national court seised of an application for disclosure of personal data, made by a person who is entitled to act, to weigh the conflicting interests involved, on the basis of the facts of each case and taking due account of the requirements of the principle of proportionality.
In those circumstances, such legislation must be regarded as likely, in principle, to ensure a fair balance between the protection of intellectual property rights enjoyed by copyright holders and the protection of personal data enjoyed by internet subscribers or users.’

Citations:

C-461/10, [2012] EUECJ C-461/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2002/58/EC 15, Directive 2006/24 4, Directive 2004/48/EC 8

Citing:

Opinion – Bonnier Audio AB v Perfect Communication Sweden AB ECJ 17-Nov-2011
ECJ (Opinion) Copyright and related rights – Right to effective protection of intellectual property – Directive 2004/48/EC – Article 8 – Protection of personal data – Electronic communications – Retention of data . .

Cited by:

Cited – The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd SC 21-Nov-2012
The Union challenged the right of the respondent to resell tickets to international rugby matches. The tickets were subject to a condition rendering it void on any resale at above face value. They said that the respondent had advertised tickets in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Information

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470826

Buchan v Keeper of The Records of Scotland: SIC 19 Dec 2012

Content of specified files – Mr Buchan asked the Keeper of the Records of Scotland (the Keeper) for unredacted copies of files relating to certain specified residential establishments. The Keeper withheld this information on the basis that it was personal data, the disclosure of which would breach the first data protection principle.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Keeper was entitled to withhold the information on this basis.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 215 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470168

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Sep 2013

The complainant submitted a request to the Home Office for information about Permanent Residence Cards. By the date of this notice the Home Office had yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached section 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a response under the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50499792

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.528677

House of Lords Appointments Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Nov 2009

The complainant requested information held by the House Lords Appointments Commission (HLAC) relating to the appointment of Lord Hameed to the peerage. The HLAC provided a small amount of information in response to this request but withheld further information on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 37(1)(b) -‘ conferring of a honour by the Crown; 40(2) -‘ personal data; and 41(1) -‘ information provided in confidence. The Commissioner is satisfied that the majority of the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 37(1)(b) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner is also satisfied that a small amount of information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) -‘ information supplied by or relating to security bodies. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the public interest under section 37(1)(b) favours disclosing a small amount of information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 37 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50194194

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.532334

Durham Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice ): ICO 30 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested information about income Durham Police received. The Commissioner’s decision is that Durham Police has applied section 12 appropriately. The Commissioner does not require Durham Police to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568708

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.555474

Rule and Scottish Ministers: SIC 5 Nov 2012

Mr Rule requested from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) information contained in communications between the First Minister and his office and Donald Trump and the Trump Organization. Mr Rule was not satisfied that he had been provided with all the information which fell within the scope of his request and applied to the Commissioner for a decision. Following an investigation, during which additional documents were identified as falling within the scope Mr Rule’s request, the Commissioner found that in general the Ministers had complied with Part 1 of FOISA in dealing with the request.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 181 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.466912

Evans v Information Commissioner: UTAA 18 Sep 2012

The claimant journalist had requested copies of correspondence between Prince Charles and assorted public bodies.
Held: ‘The Upper Tribunal allows the appeals by Mr Evans. A further decision identifying information to be disclosed to Mr Evans, along with the terms of substituted decision notices, will be issued pursuant to the tribunal’s directions dated 17 September 2012’. The information to be disclosed related to those matters where the Prince could be considered to be acting as an advocate.

Judges:

Walker J, Angel UTJ

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 313 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Evans, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Attorney General and Another Admn 9-Jul-2013
The claimant had requested disclosure of correspondence between Prince Charles and assorted government departments. It had been refused, the Attorney General issuing a certificate under section 53(2) after the Upper tribunal had allowed the . .
At UTAA – Evans, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Attorney General and Another CA 12-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist had requested disclosure under the 2000 Act of correspondence between the Prince of Wales and government departments. The Upper Tribunal had found that matters where the prince had acted as advocate were disclosable. . .
See Also – Evans v The Information Commissioner and Others CA 12-Mar-2014
Mr Evans had sought release under the 2000 Act of leers from the Prince of Wales to variou government ministers. The Upper Tribunal had allowed his appeal aganst refusal, but the Attorney had then issued a certificate that in his opinion, the . .
At UTAA – Evans and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Attorney General SC 26-Mar-2015
The Attorney General appealed against a decision for the release under the Act and Regulations of letters from HRH The Prince of Wales to various ministers and government departments.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The A-G had not been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Constitutional

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.466770

Arunabha Das Gupta v Scottish Court Service: SIC 9 Jul 2012

Court action and related complaints – Mr Gupta requested from the Scottish Court Service (the SCS) information relating to the handling of a court action and related complaints. The SCS responded by advising him that the court records were available to him for inspection. Following a review, where the SCS provided a more detailed response to his request, Mr Gupta remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the SCS had generally dealt with Mr Gupta’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. It had been entitled to withhold information as court records or information otherwise accessible to Mr Gupta, and also to give Mr Gupta notice that it did not hold certain of the information. However, the Commissioner did identify technical failures in the content of the SCS’s initial refusal notice.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 113 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.466846

Rule and Scottish Ministers: SIC 3 Feb 2012

This decision considers whether the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to an information request made by Mr David Rule.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 023 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.451524

Health and Safety Executive (Other): ICO 2 May 2018

The complainant has requested a copy of the internal investigation report carried out by Total into the blowout at the Elgin 4 Well Head in 2012. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health and Safety Executive does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. However, in failing to inform the complainant within 20 working days that it required further time to consider the request, it breached Regulation 7(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 7: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0714017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.617801

Health and Safety Executive (Other): ICO 30 Jan 2018

The complainant has requested a copy of an independent investigation report by Edif ERA (a trading name of ERA Technology Ltd) and the review carried out by a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) specialist electrical inspector in relation to the cause of an accident involving the complainant. HSE withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 41 of the FOIA (information provided in confidence) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that HSE has correctly applied section 41 of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 41: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50687887

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.617365

London Borough of Croydon (Local Government): ICO 3 Mar 2021

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (the Council) about IT expenditure over the last two years. The Council had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-85746

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.659832

Department of The Environment Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 21 May 2007

The complainant on 1 January 2005 made a request to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (the Department) for a copy of a planning enforcement file relating to his planning application. The Department allowed the complainant to view the file but withheld some information contained in the file. In responding to his request, the Department subsequently applied the exemptions under sections 40, 42 and 30 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to parts of the file, some of which he had already viewed. Following correspondence with the Information Commissioner, the Department dealt with the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), relying on regulations 12(5)(b) and 13(1) to withhold the information sought. As a result of the intervention of the Commissioner, the Department undertook to disclose a redacted copy of correspondence with its in-house solicitors to the complainant and withheld the remaining information. The Commissioner is satisfied that the remaining redactions contained in the legal correspondence are exempt by virtue of regulation 12(5) (b) of the EIR The Commissioner is satisfied that to disclose the outstanding third party personal information contained in the enforcement file would be unfair to the individuals involved and is therefore exempt under Regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner is of the view that in relation to that correspondence between the Department and its external legal advisors exception 12 (5) (b) is not engaged and in any event the privilege in this information has been waived due to the complainant being privy to its content. The Commissioner orders the Department to release that information to the complainant. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
EIR 12.5.b: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FER0082261

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.532929

Sheffield Hallam University (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Feb 2013

The complainant made a freedom of information request to Sheffield Hallam University for a list of the workplace email addresses of staff who had joined the University since May 2010. The University refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and found that section 14(1) applies and the University did not have to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50464524

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.528010

Reading Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Jan 2012

The complainant requested information relating to a particular property where he had been a tenant, the condition of which had been investigated by the Reading Borough Council. The council applied an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 relating to investigations. The Commissioner did not find it necessary to consider the application of the exemption concerning investigations because he was satisfied that the information was exempt because it represents the personal data of the owner of the property. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50414850

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.529115

Meikle and Scottish Ministers: SIC 20 Feb 2014

Bute House accommodation – benefit in kind: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 5 November 2013, Mr Meikle made a request to the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) asking if the First Minister’s residence (Bute House) is treated as a ‘benefit in kind’. This decision finds that the Ministers failed to respond to the request within the timescales allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Ministers failed to comply with Mr Meikle’s requirement for review within the timescales set down by FOISA

Citations:

[2014] ScotIC 038 – 2014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.522725

Tower Hamlets Homes (Decision Notice) FS50369379: ICO 16 Aug 2011

The complainant asked the Tower Hamlets Homes to provide information relating to its technical services. The public authority provided some information but maintained that further information was exempt by virtue of section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, being already available to the complainant. It also advised that some information was not held. During the investigation the public authority sought to aggregate this request with two other requests made by the complainant thereby exempting all three by virtue of section 12 (cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit). It also sought to introduce section 44 (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information was not exempt by virtue of section 21 and that the public authority was incorrect to claim some information was not held. He further finds that the public authority was not able to aggregate the requests, it could not apply section 12 and, also, that it could not rely on section 44. The public authority’s handling of the request also resulted in breaches of certain procedural requirements of the Act as identified in this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50369379

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.530793

Blackpool Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 11 Jul 2011

The complainant requested a breakdown of a figure of pounds 135,000 quoted in the press as the value of a series of thefts of tram cable. The complainant was unhappy with the response provided as he alleged that it contradicted responses to previous requests for information. The Commissioner investigated but found no breaches of the Act and therefore does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0181 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50358805

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.530639

In re X: CA 24 Jul 2012

X had made, in confidence, an allegation that she had been abused as a child. The alleged perpetrator was now in another relationship, and with children. X resisted the disclosure of her complaint.
Held: An order was made for disclosure. There had been an encounter between X and the mother, and whilst no details had been disclosed it was now untenable not to allow disclosure.

Judges:

Thorpe, Hallett, McFarlane LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1084

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – A, Re (Disclosure of Third Party Information) FD 16-Feb-2012
The mother and father disputed contact. It was known that a third party had made a confidential allegation of sexual abuse against the father. Disclosure was sought. The application was resisted on the basis that the woman’s own health would be . .

Cited by:

First appeal – In re J (A Child: Disclosure) CA 21-Sep-2012
X had complained in confidence of an alleged assault by the father of A. Social services had wished to include that disclosure in an investigation of J’s care of A. . .
First Appeal – In re A (A Child) SC 12-Dec-2012
A woman, X, had made an allegation in confidence she had been sexually assaulted as a child. The court was asked whether that confidence could be overriden to allow an investigation to protect if necessary a child still living with the man. Evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.467055

Leicestershire County Council (Local Government): ICO 3 Mar 2021

The complainant requested information about local sports pitch drainage. Leicestershire County Council responded to the request, issuing a refusal notice under section 14 of the FOIA, as it considered it be vexatious. Upon review the Council complied with request, correctly responding under the EIR. However the Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-49156

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 November 2022; Ref: scu.659831

Insolvency Service (Local Government): ICO 15 Mar 2021

The complainant submitted a request to the Insolvency Service seeking information about its process for considering applications for Debt Relief Orders (DRO). The complainant also sought information about a specific DRO awarded to a named third party. The Insolvency Service provided the complainant with some information about the process of DROs. It sought to withhold the information specific to named third party’s application on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Insolvency Service does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request about the process of DROs beyond that previously provided to him. The Commissioner has also concluded that the Insolvency Service is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold information specific to named third party’s application.
FOI 1: Complaint partly upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-42312

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 November 2022; Ref: scu.659830

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Jun 2011

The complainant requested a large amount of information about the consideration of complaints he and his family had submitted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (the PHSO). The PHSO viewed some of the ‘requests’ as invalid, but provided some information. The PHSO withheld information under section 40(1) (first party personal data), section 44(1) (statutory bar) and section 40(2) (third party personal data). It could not confirm or deny whether additional information was held by virtue of section 44(2) (statutory bar). The Commissioner decided that there was no information that had been withheld under section 40(2) that was not also covered by section 44(1). He also found that the PHSO was correct that some ‘requests’ were not valid under the Act. However, he also decided that the PHSO was wrong about other requests that were valid. The PHSO then applied section 44(2) to the requests that were found to be valid. The Commissioner considered the operation of section 44 to all the remaining information. He found that the PHSO applied section 44(1) appropriately to the information it confirmed it held. He also found that section 44(2) was appropriately applied to neither confirm nor deny whether information was held directly for each request and for the requests it had previously classed as invalid. However, the Commissioner has noted a number of procedural breaches of the Act and that the PHSO breached sections 10(1) and 17(1). The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50347380

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.530605

Ellis v Chief Constable of Grampian Police: SIC 21 Nov 2012

Ms Ellis requested from the Chief Constable of Grampian Police (Grampian Police) copies of statements held relating to the death of a named individual. Grampian Police refused to disclose the information as it related to an investigation into the death of a person and was the personal data of those who provided the statements. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that Grampian Police had been entitled to withhold the information as it related to an investigation into the death of the named person.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 189 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.466924

Mcfadyen v Blue Suite Medical Practice: SIC 20 Jul 2012

Number of warning letters issued – Mr McFadyen requested information from the Blue Suite Medical Practice (the Practice), including numbers of warning letters issued to patients over specified periods. He was informed that exact figures could not be provided. While finding some technical shortcomings in the Practice’s responses to Mr McFadyen, the Commissioner accepted that the Practice was not obliged to comply with his request, as the cost of doing so would exceed the statutory limit of andpound;600.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 123 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.466851

N and Scottish Ministers: SIC 4 Oct 2012

SIC Scottish implementation of the LS/CMI risk assessment tool – Mr N asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for the information they held on the Scottish implementation of the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory risk assessment tool. The Ministers advised Mr N that the cost of complying with the request would exceed andpound;600 and that they were therefore not obliged to comply.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted that cost of complying with the request would exceed andpound;600. While she found that the Ministers had failed to respond to Mr N’s requirement for review in time, she did not require the Ministers to take any action.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 160 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, The Freedom of Information (Fees for Required Disclosure) (Scotland) Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.466902

Meikle and Scottish Ministers: SIC 28 Aug 2012

Cost of alcoholic drink – Mr Meikle asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) various questions about money which had been spent on alcohol. The Ministers advised Mr Meikle that they did not hold some of the information he had asked for and that responding to the remainder of his requests would cost more than andpound;600 (which meant they did not have to reply).
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Ministers had failed to respond to Mr Meikle’s requests for information and requirements for review in time.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 141 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.466869

R and Scottish Prison Service: SIC 9 Jul 2012

Policy on family contact and access to postage stamps – Mr R requested from the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) information about the SPS’s documented policies on family contact and access to postage stamps. The SPS replied, stating that it did not hold any information covered by the terms of Mr R’s request. The SPS provided some information which it did not consider to be policy, but which it believed to be relevant to Mr R’s request. Following a review, Mr R remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
After an investigation, the Commissioner found that the SPS had dealt with Mr R’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by giving notice that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of Mr R’s request. She did not require the SPS to take any action.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 115 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information, Prisons

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.466857

Morecambe Town Council (Local Government): ICO 5 Mar 2021

The complainant requested information relating to the second generation of the council website, as well as copies of timesheets for the proper officer. The Commissioner’s decision is that Morecambe Town Council breached sections 1 (general right of access) and 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA, by failing to disclose to the complainant information to which he is entitled within 20 working days of his request. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-83953

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.659838

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health): ICO 9 Jul 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation into the source of the figure for excess deaths as the result of patients being admitted to hospitals at weekends used by the Secretary of Health (now Secretary for Health and Social Care) in a speech on 16 July 2015. NHS England refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has correctly applied section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any action in this matter.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50712824

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.621351

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health): ICO 25 Jun 2018

The complainant has made a two part request for information relating to a complaint he submitted to NHS England, and information relating to its decision not to accept his reason for not attending any of the medical practices offered to him. NHS England withheld all the information, citing the exemption under section 40(1) (personal information) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The complainant considers NHS England’s reasons for withholding the requested information are neither valid nor fair. The complainant is also concerned that NHS England has not complied with its obligations under section 1(1), section 10(1) and section 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has complied with its obligations under section 1(1), section 10(1) and section 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of the FOIA but NHS England should have cited section 40(5)(a) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 17: Complaint not upheld FOI 10: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50681495

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.621266

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health): ICO 17 Jul 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to complaints made against One Medical Group. NHS England refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England was correct to apply section 12 FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner also considers that NHS England provided the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50719756

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.621352

Information Commissioner’s Office (Other): ICO 13 Jan 2021

The complainant has requested a copy of the Register of Relevant Digital Service Providers. The Information Commissioner’s Officer withheld the information, relying on section 44(1) of the FOIA to do so, because it believed that disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that disclosure of the information would breach the Data Protection Act and therefore the ICO has correctly relied on section 44(1) of the FOIA to withhold it. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
FOI 44: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-40162

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.657989

Open Rights Group and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: Admn 3 Oct 2019

Challenge to the lawfulness of the immigration exemption in paragraph 4, Schedule 2, of the Data Protection Act 2018

Judges:

Mr Justice Supperstone

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2562 (Admin), [2019] WLR(D) 546, [2020] 1 WLR 811

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Information

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.642713