The complainant made a request to the British Transport Police Authority (BTPA) for an electronic copy of an economic model used in the calculation of the cost of the services provided by British Transport Police, together with all the underlying data used to populate the model. The BTPA refused the request on the basis that the model was not information held for the purposes of the Act. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the BTPA accepted that it holds information for the purposes of the Act, releasing some information to the complainant but withholding the remainder under section 43(2). The Commissioner does not find this exemption engaged and requires that the information be disclosed to the complainant. He also finds breaches of sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1)(b) and (c) and 17(7).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50176916

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.532118

The complainant has requested South Ribble Borough Council (‘the council’) to release copies of all internal and external legal advice it received in respect of a particular planning application when the application was subject to a planning inquiry and later judicial proceedings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0429103

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.529230

The complainant requested information in relation to a dune restoration project at Ainsdale sand dunes in Merseyside. The public authority disclosed some information at the time of the request as well as during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation and consequently confirmed it did not hold any additional information matching the request. After considering the case, the Commissioner is satisfied that on a balance of probabilities, the public authority does not hold any information in relation to the request other than that already disclosed to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FER0201165

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.532143

The complainant requested information from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman that informs staff reviewing complaints about its own work how to handle those complaints. Specifically, the complainant wanted to know what legal arguments and principles staff use when reviewing cases and what materials the PHSO uses to train those staff to make decisions on cases. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the PHSO does not hold any information in addition to that it provided to the complainant. However, he also considers that whilst the PHSO did provide the information requested it did not do so within 20 working days of the request and so it breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0283 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50389485

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.531100

The complainant made a request for information related to a meeting between the Attorney General and the strategy adviser to the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, Lord Birt. The public authority refused the request under section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (free and frank provision of advice or free and frank exchange of views). The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and has found that for most of the withheld information the section 35(1)(a) exemption applied and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. However the Commissioner also decided that for some information the public interest favoured disclosure and that some information was neither exempt under section 35(1)(a), nor sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose that information to the complainant within 35 calendar days. Finally, the Commissioner found that the public authority breached section 17(1) (refusal of a request) in its handling of the complainant’s request. NB: The complainant originally submitted his request to the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers. At the time of the request this was a distinct government department providing support to the Attorney General and Solicitor General in their responsibilities as UK Law Officers. The Commissioner understands that the work of that department has now been absorbed by the Attorney General’s Office. References in this decision notice to – the public authority-? should be read as references to the Attorney General’s Office.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50088848

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.532153

The complainant requested copies of all documents prepared by West Yorkshire Police in relation to a risk assessment carried out as part of a missing person enquiry for his son. This was refused by the public authority as they considered it exempt from disclosure under sections 31, 40 and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the public authority changed its position on the refusal under section 31 to section 30 of the Act and introduced section 23 for some of the information. The Commissioner found that section 30(1) applied to the information. He concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption in section 30(1) outweighs the public interest in disclosure for some of the information. For the remainder he concluded that the public interest favours disclosure. He also found that section 23 did not apply. It was not necessary to consider sections 40(2) and 41 as the Commissioner concluded that all the material withheld under those exemptions was correctly withheld by the public authority under section 30(1). The Commissioner has ordered the public authority to disclose redacted copies of the information to the complainant. He has also found breaches of sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1)(a) (b) and 17(1)(c) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50213522

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.532151

The complainant requested details of grants made to the public authority by organisations associated with the military sector. The public authority initially refused to confirm or deny whether it had contracted with any of the private companies named in the request. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the stance of the public authority altered and it now confirmed that it did contract with some of the private companies specified in the request, but that these companies had objected to the disclosure of the information held by the public authority that related to them. The public authority cited the exemption provided by section 43(2). The Commissioner finds that this exemption was applied correctly, but also finds that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of sections 1(1)(a), 10(1) and 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) when responding to the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50125011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.532195

The complainant requested details from the public authority of the annual pension and lump sum payment for an ex employee and whether the lump sum was tax free. The information was withheld under Section 40 (2) of the Act. The Commissioner found that Section 40 (2) was engaged and that the public authority was right not to disclose the information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50174518

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.532119

The complainant requested information held by the public authority which related to the names of the co-freeholders to his property. The public authority initially refused to disclose information on the grounds of the exemption provided by section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act (personal data of third parties) but subsequently fully disclosed this information. The complainant was concerned that the public authority had not disclosed all relevant information to him. The Commissioner finds that the public authority does not hold any further information in relation to the complainant’s request which has not already been disclosed to the complainant. However the Commissioner has decided that the public authority did not fulfil the procedural requirements of the Act at sections 1(1)(a) and 17(b) and (c).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50214916

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.532129

The complainant requested that the council provide details of the monies paid in settlement to employees of a specific division over a six month period before proceeding to a full hearing at Employment Tribunal. The council refused to disclose the information citing section 40(2) ‘personal data’. The Commissioner has investigated and is satisfied that the information is personal data and that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle and section 40(2) is therefore engaged.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50229268

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.532177

The complainant requested, from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), copies of its written procedures, protocols and policies in relation to information sharing with other public authorities. Having received its response, the complainant wrote to the IPCC making a new request. This Decision Notice covers the original request only. In relation to this request for information, the Commissioner finds that the IPCC dealt with the request in accordance with the Act and therefore he does not require any steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50209321

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.532138

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50318444

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.531750

Failure to respond to a request for review

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 024 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.434134

The complainant has requested from the Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust), correspondence including emails between the Chief Executive and other persons in the Trust pertaining to any potential closure or reduction in services for Accident and Emergency services (A and E), or other related services at Cheltenham General Hospital (the Hospital). The Trust initially confirmed it did not hold any information in relation to the request. The complainant was not satisfied with the response and submitted a complaint to the Commissioner. Following the Commissioner’s involvement the scope of the request was broadened to include correspondence relating to matters pertaining to any changes in A and E services. As a result, information was provided. However the complainant believed more information was held. Additional enquiries were undertaken by the Trust but no further information was located. The Commissioner’s decision is that further information is not held. He therefore does not require the Trust to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50480910

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.528567

The complainant has requested information regarding the Head of Paid Service’s diary. The Council refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that Folkstone and Hythe District Council is entitled to refuse the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA.
FOI 14(1): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO FS50888289

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.653641

Dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 2018 – 0145 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.633815

Dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 2018 – 0009 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.633817

Dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 2018 – 0149 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998, Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.633812

Dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 2018 – 0150 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.633811

Appeal

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 2018 – 0195 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.633827

Dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 2017 – 0241 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.633823

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 2017 – 0218 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.633816

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50558122

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.555470

The complainant requested information using Twitter relating to a claim made by the DWP’s Press Office about Universal Jobmatch. The DWP responded to the complainant via email and stated that no relevant information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP is incorrect to state that no relevant information is held, which is a breach of section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The DWP also breached section 10 of the Act as it did not respond to the request within the statutory time limit. However, the Commissioner finds that the DWP did not breach section 11 of the Act by refusing to provide a response via Twitter. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a new response to the complainant’s request which complies with section 1(1) of the Act, or issue a valid refusal notice. 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. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50557697

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.555469

The complainant made a request to Bath and North East Somerset Council (‘the Council’) for copies of a number of documents relating to a particular court case which had been heard in Bristol County Court. The Council refused to provide the information requested as it considered it was exempt from disclosure under section 32(1) of the Act. The Commissioner is satisfied that that all of the requested information is exempt by virtue of sections 32(1)(a) and 32(1)(b). However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 1(1)(a) of the Act in failing to inform the complainant that some information relating to the request was not held, and section 17(1) for failing to specify in its refusal notice which subsection(s) of section 32(1) it was relying on.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 32 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50232752

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.532116

The complainant submitted a series of requests to Plymouth City Council stemming from the council’s assessment of his benefit application and as a consequence of the responses received made several complaints to the Information Commissioner. After an initial assessment the Commissioner considered it appropriate to investigate five of the requests. Following the investigation the Commissioner found that the council had provided sufficient evidence to correctly apply section 14(1) of the Act to refuse one request and that, in relation to the other four requests, the council committed breaches of the following procedural sections of the Act; section 1(1)(a), sections 10(1), section 17(1), section 17(1)(b), section 17(1)(c) and section 17(7). The council is required to respond fully to one request in compliance with it’s obligations under section 1(1) of the Act within 35 calendar days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50148542

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.532070

The complainant requested information from the University of East Anglia relating to the University’s Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) system. The University replied to the request, refusing to release any information, citing exemption under section 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but informing the complainant of his right to a review and appeal. The complainant requested an internal review. Following the review, the University maintained its claim for exemption. This time, in addition to section 41(1), it claimed exemption under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 43(2) of the Act. It also maintained that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner has decided that all of the withheld information should be released. He holds that while section 36(2)(b) (ii) is engaged, he has decided that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. In addition, the Commissioner has decided that the exemptions under sections 41(1) and 43(2) are not engaged in this case. The public authority had therefore breached section 1 (1) (b) in failing to disclose this information. In addition, in its dealings with the complainant, the University failed to cite the relevant subsections by completion of its internal review in breach of section 17 (1) (b). The Commissioner requires that the information be released within 35 days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50171494

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.532194

The complainant requested the residential postcodes of all the Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School’s (the School) staff and pupils. The request was refused on the basis that the information constituted personal data. Section 40 was cited by the School as the reason for the refusal. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the information withheld is personal data and that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle and is therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the Act. However, the Commissioner has also decided that the School did not fulfil the requirements of section 17(1)(b) in that it did not fully cite the exemption it was seeking to rely upon.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50236990

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.532135

The complainant made a number of requests to Bristol City Council, relating to a noise insulation claim he made following the development of a spine road in Bristol. The Council applied the exclusion under section 14(1) of the Act to the most recent request because it considered that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner has investigated and is satisfied that the Council was able to demonstrate that the request had been correctly refused. Therefore the Commissioner requires no action to be taken in relation to this request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50180713

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.532160

The complainant made a request to Backwell Parish Council for copies of bank statements for the period December 2007 to March 2008. The Council refused the request claiming that all of the requested information was exempt under sections 40, 43 and 41 of the Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council agreed to disclose most of the information that it had originally withheld, with the exception of some information that it maintained was exempt under section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that sections 43 and 41 are not engaged, but he is satisfied that the remaining information is exempt under section 40(2). As bank statements were listed as a class of information in the Council’s publication scheme at the time of the request the Council breached section 19(1)(b) of the Act for not making the information available on request. The Commissioner has also identified a number of procedural shortcomings in the way the Council handled the complainant’s request. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0082 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 19 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50208722

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.532154

The complainant requested the mortality figures for a (named Doctor). The public authority refused to comply with the request by virtue of the provisions of section 12(1) of the Act. The Commissioner finds the public authority correctly relied on section 12(1). He however also finds that the public authority in breach of section 10(1) for failing to inform the complainant it held the information requested within 20 working days, and 17(5) for failing to specify within 20 working days that it was not complying with the request by virtue of the provision at section 12(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50209825

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.532095

The complainant asked for the numbers of teaching staff who had been investigated in connection with offences under section 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and for details of the outcome of these investigations. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of this request and cited the exemptions provided by sections 30(3) (investigations), 38(2) (health and safety) and 40(5) (personal information). The Commissioner finds that the public interest in the maintenance of the exemption provided by section 30(3) does not outweigh the public interest in confirmation or denial and also finds that the exemptions provided by section 38(2) and 40(5) are not engaged. Therefore, the public authority breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) in failing to provide the confirmation or denial within 20 working days of receipt of the request. The Commissioner further finds that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of sections 17(1) and 17(3)(a) in its handling of the request. The public authority is required to provide to the complainant confirmation or denial of whether the information requested is held. For any information that is held, the public authority is required to either disclose this to the complainant, or to provide a refusal notice valid for the purposes of section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50191587

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.532127

The complainant requested information from the Vale of Glamorgan Council (the Council) regarding the contractual arrangements it had entered into with a third party in relation to the sale of a particular piece of land. The Council considered the complainant had not made a valid information request and failed to confirm or deny whether it held information relevant to the request, or provide any information, where it was not exempt from disclosure. The Council has not provided an appropriate response to the request, despite the intervention of the Commissioner. The Commissioner considers that the information requested, if held, would be environmental information and should have been considered under the EIR. In failing to consider the request in accordance with the provisions of the EIR, the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to either provide the information requested or issue a valid refusal notice that complies with regulation 14 of the EIR within 35 days of the date of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50232757

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.532196

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50213780

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.532394

The complainant made a request to Thames Valley Police for information in relation to the transport of munitions between RAF Welford and RAF Fairford during the period of military operations against Iraq in February -‘ May 2003. Thames Valley Police refused the request, citing the exemptions at sections 24 (national security), 31 (law enforcement), 38 (health and safety) and 40 (personal data). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, Thames Valley Police released some information to the complainant and confirmed it was citing the exemptions at sections 24, 31 and 38 in relation to the remainder of the withheld information. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the exemptions at sections 31 and 38 are engaged in respect of all but one element of the information. He orders that this information is disclosed. However, in relation to the remainder of the withheld information he finds the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also identified a series of procedural shortcomings on the part of the public authority relating to delay (sections 1 and 10) and failure to specify appropriately the exemptions cited and the reason they applied (section 17).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50156552

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.532148

The complainant requested a copy of actuarial advice the public authority had obtained in relation to an investigation it had conducted regarding the State Earnings Related Pension. The public authority withheld the requested information by virtue of the exemption at section 44(1)(a)(prohibitions on disclosure) and additionally sought to rely on the exemption at section 40(2) (personal information) during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner decided that the requested information was correctly withheld under section 44(1)(a) and therefore did not consider the applicability of section 40(2). Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0060 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50222887

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.532109

The complainant asked the then DTI for the names of creators of documents and folders on its internal Matrix electronic record and data management system. DTI refused to release the information, initially citing section 40 of the Act but later relying on 36 and 40. The Commissioner upheld the DTI’s decision that section 36(2)(c) was engaged in relation to all of the names of individuals who were creators of records on Matrix, and concluded that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in releasing the information. He found the DTI to have breached section 17(1) (b) and (c) by failing to apply section 36 by the completion of the internal review. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0035 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50078514

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.531960

The complainant requested a considerable amount of information about the BBC’s Panorama programme. The Commissioner has previously issued a number of Decision Notices in relation to complaints he has received. A number of further complaints were originally closed informally. However the complainant has subsequently indicated that he requires a decision in relation to those complaints. Therefore, this Decision Notice will address the complaints regarding information requests in respect of which no previous Decision Notice has been issued. This excludes those complaints that have been expressly withdrawn by the complainant. The Commissioner has carefully considered this case. His decision is that the BBC correctly determined that, if it existed, all recorded information relevant to the requests that are the subject of this Decision Notice would be held genuinely for the purposes of journalism. Therefore the BBC was not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act in relation to those requests.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50356476

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.531754

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust for specific information relating to a counter-fraud investigation into a named doctor. The Trust confirmed or denied whether it held that information under section 1(1)(a) of the Act. After considering the case, the Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was excluded even from its duty to respond to the request under section 1(1)(a) by virtue of the provisions of section 40(5)(b)(i) because, in responding to the request, it had to disclose information which constitutes sensitive personal data of the named doctor. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any further steps in relation to the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50197501

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.532075

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the South London Healthcare NHS Trust for information related to the building of the Princess Royal University Hospital and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. The Trust refused the request by relying on the exemptions in section 36(2)(c) (Public affairs), section 41 (Information provided in confidence) and section 43 (Commercial interests). The Commissioner has found that none of the exemptions are engaged and the information should be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the information it holds falling within the scope of the request of 12 July 2012.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50481236

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.528611

Between 31 January and 10 August 2011 the complainant submitted 16 requests for information to the school. The school dealt with some of the requests. It later stated that subsequent requests were vexatious but did not specify which section of the legislation it was applying. The Information Commissioner considers that the FOIA applies to most of the requests, apart from 2 points in a request of 30 March 2011, to which the EIR applies. The school subsequently applied section 14 to the FOIA requests and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to points 3 and 5 of one of the requests, appropriately. However, the school has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA and regulations 5, 11 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435672

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.529362

The complainant has requested information about child protection from the London Borough of Redbridge (the ‘Council’). The request was refused on the basis that the Council deemed it vexatious in accordance with section 14(1) of FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has properly deemed this request vexatious. He does not require the Council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50492112

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.528704

The complainant made a request to the BBC for information concerning TV Licensing and data protection. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. He upholds the complaint but requires no further action to be taken as a response has now been provided to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50518802

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.528845

The complainants submitted an eight part request for information relating to the way the Environment Agency had dealt with a complaint they had made about a watercourse. The EA withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(b) (the request was manifestly unreasonable). During the course of the Information Commissioner’s investigation, the EA disclosed some information and the complainants withdrew part of their complaint. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0096 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0347432

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.530322

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50461382

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.528099

In December 2009, the complainant requested minutes of internal meetings relating to two planning applications. The Department of the Environment NI advised it did not hold this information but failed to conduct an internal review of its decision as required by the regulations. The matter was subsequently investigated by the Commissioner and a Decision Notice was issued requiring the DoE to conduct an internal review of its response to the original information request. On 25 January 2011 the DoE wrote to the complainant with the result of that internal review, advising that the requested information was not held. The complainant was not satisfied with the DoE’s response and considers it should hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that, on the balance of probabilities, no recorded information is held in relation to the complainant’s request. However, the Commissioner also finds that the DoE breached regulation 14(3)(a) in that it failed to specify the exceptions it relied on to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0381837

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.530726

The complainant requested the number of weather presenters the BBC employed, the total salary expenditure and their range of salaries. The BBC stated that the request fell outside the scope of the Act because it was for information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. However, it was prepared to provide the number of relevant presenters and confirmed that it did not hold the relevant information for those presenters employed by the Met Office. The complainant asked the Commissioner to consider whether the information about the presenters employed by the BBC should be provided under the Act. He has considered this case carefully and determined that the BBC correctly stated that the requested information is held for the purpose of journalism and that it was not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50314106

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.531749

The complainant has requested information about BBC editorial control and definitions of words used by editorial staff or in programmes. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC genuinely for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall under the FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50509879

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.528729

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50421900

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.529272

Between 31 January and 10 August 2011 the complainant submitted 16 requests for information to the school. The school dealt with some of the requests. It later stated that subsequent requests were vexatious but did not specify which section of the legislation it was applying. The Information Commissioner considers that the FOIA applies to most of the requests, apart from 2 points in a request of 30 March 2011, to which the EIR applies. The school subsequently applied section 14 to the FOIA requests and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to points 3 and 5 of one of the requests, appropriately. However, the school has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA and regulations 5, 11 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435770

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.529365

ICO The complainant submitted a request to Selby District Council (‘the Council’) for information from environmental records held on a property in Selby. The Council stated that it would provide a collated version of this information upon provision of a fee, as it was reasonable for it to make the information available in a format other than inspection under regulation 6(1)(a). The Council also applied the exception at regulation 12(4)(b), which applies to manifestly unreasonable requests. The Commissioner finds that Council has breached regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR as it failed to make the requested information available on request within the statutory time for compliance. The Council has breached regulation 8(3) by imposing a charge for the costs of activities it was not entitled to take into account. The Council has also breached regulation 11(4) by failing to provide its internal review outcome within 40 working days. The Commissioner finds that the Council applied the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) incorrectly, and that it breached regulation 14(2) by failing to inform the complainant that it relied upon this exception within the statutory time for compliance. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council correctly relied upon regulation 6(1)(a) as it was reasonable for it to make information available in a format other than inspection. The Commissioner requires the Council to make the requested information available to the complainant in an alternative format within 35 days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 6 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 8 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0354514

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.530482

The complainant made a request to Aldergate Medical Practice (the Practice) for the information it held about its treatment of his mother and his associated complaints. The Practice refused to provide some information and claimed it did not hold other information. The case was referred to the Commissioner. During the course of his investigation, the Practice explained that it was prepared to provide the complainant privately with a copy of most of the relevant recorded information held about his mother through the Commissioner in an effort to informally resolve this case. It also found some further information that it was prepared to disclose under the Act and did so. The complainant contends that further relevant recorded information was held and is missing. The Commissioner has determined that on the balance of probabilities no further relevant recorded information is held by the Practice. However, he has found breaches of section 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b). He has also found procedural breaches of section 10(1), 17(1), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), and 17(7)(b), but he requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50410246

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.530733

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50467452

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.528100

The complainant has requested University of Sussex (‘the university) to disclose a copy of the business case it produced in April 2012 about the university’s proposals to outsource it catering and facilities management. Initially the university withheld the entire report under sections 41 and 43 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the university decided to disclose the majority of the report and a small selection of information from Appendix D. The notice has focussed on the remaining withheld information in Appendix D and the university’s application of section 41 of the FOIA to this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university acted appropriately by withholding the remaining withheld information under section 41 of the FOIA. He therefore requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50496241

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.527420

The complainant’s request was as follows: ‘I should like to request all information contained in the Council’s records in relation to the above reference number. This information should be held in paper records and by electronic methods internal and external information.’ The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) was wrong to consider this request to be vexatious in line with the provisions of section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50350859

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.531104

Information relating to the disappearance and death of a named individual

Citations:

[2013] ScotIC 016 – 2013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.514791

Information relating to property repairs

Citations:

[2013] ScotIC 022 – 2013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.514793