The complainant requested a large quantity of information from the public authority to assist in his case against dismissal. The Commissioner has determined that some of the information requested was the complainant’s personal data and is exempt under section 40(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). He has referred it for an assessment under section 42 of the Data Protection Act (the DPA). Of the remaining information the Commissioner is satisfied that it has either now been disclosed to the complainant or else is exempt under section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner has, however, found numerous breaches of section 1(1)(a) and section 1(1)(b). He has also found breaches of section 9(3), section 10, section 17(1) and section 17(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require any remedial steps to be taken as he has already asked for information not previously provided to be released to the complainant and is satisfied that this has been done.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 9 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50111290

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.532120

The complainant has requested information on the payment of sponsorship fees to conferences. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498870

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.528535

The complainant requested information from Staffordshire County Council (council) about how many people with Asperger’s Syndrome in Staffordshire living in the community receive direct payments. The council said that it did not hold the requested information but this statement was not accepted by the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held and therefore the council responded appropriately to this request. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50489229

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.528396

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 FS50408858

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.529360

The complainant has requested information about a (reported) complaint made by the Luxembourg Foreign Minister to BBC Scotland. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50501761

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.528536

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0474935

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.528161

The complainant requested information relating to the appointment of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. The public authority refused to disclose the majority of the information falling within the scope of the requests, citing the exemptions provided by section 36(2)(b) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice and to the free and frank exchange of views). The Commissioner finds that these exemptions were cited correctly in relation to some of the information falling within the scope of the requests, but that the remainder of the information is not exempt and the public authority breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act in failing to disclose this information within 20 working days of receipt of the request. The public authority is now required to disclose the non-exempt information. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority breached the requirement of section 17(1) in failing to respond to the request with a refusal notice within 20 working days of receipt. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0204 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50374854

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.530775

The complainant has requested information from the Environment Agency relating to coastal erosion. The Environment Agency provided information in response to some parts of the complainant’s request but refused to disclose information in relation to other parts, applying regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner considers that the Environment Agency has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the relevant parts of the complainant’s request, however it has breached regulation 5(2) by providing the information outside the statutory time limit. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FER0521950

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.527343

The complainant asked the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for the names of MPs who had referred complaints to the PHSO on behalf of constituents about premium rate telephone services (with respect to television phone-in shows). The PHSO explained that the Ombudsman is subject to a statutory bar contained in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. This prevents the release of information obtained by the Ombudsman, or officers acting on her behalf, in the course of (or for the purposes of) an investigation, except in very limited circumstances. The PHSO therefore refused to disclose this information under section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner finds that the PHSO was correct to apply section 44(1)(a) to the request. He also found some procedural breaches of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0196 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50368227

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.530774

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 FS50435674

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.529363

The complainant has requested information relating to a meeting between the Cabinet Office, the Environment Agency and Natural England. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Environment Agency has correctly applied the exception provided by regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Environment Agency to disclose the information it has identified as appropriate for disclosure during his investigation as outlined in paragraph 20 of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0461745

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.528080

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50465955

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.528163

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 FS50408927

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.529361

Dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 2017 – 0070 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598416

ICO The complainant made a series of requests to South Gloucestershire Council regarding costs, staffing levels and service procedures within the Council’s taxi licensing department. The Council refused to comply with the requests, claiming that they were vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the Council correctly applied section 14(1) to the requests, and requires no steps to be taken. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached section 17(7)(a) of the Act as it failed to provide the complainant with details of its internal review procedure. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0048 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50301278

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.530236

The complainant requested various pieces of information over a number of years about Exmouth market. To begin with, the public authority incorrectly dealt with the request outside of the Act. The public authority provided the complainant with the information it held, however the complainant disputes that he has been provided with everything he requested. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and is satisfied that the public authority has provided all of the information covered by the scope of the request and therefore that it complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the Act. However, the public authority breached section 10(1) for failing to comply with section 1(1)(a) within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50302280

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.530218

By the age of 24 the plaintiff had accumulated 74 convictions, of which only 2 were spent.
Held: The court refused an application for leave to serve proceedings on Google in California, claiming remedies under the DPA in respect of the processing of information about the convictions. Sch 3 Condition 5 was so clearly satisfied that the contrary was not arguable, so there was no triable issue: ‘legally as a consequence of the open justice principle by committing an offence [the offender] is deliberately taking steps to make the information public’.

Judges:

Stephens J

Citations:

[2017] NIQB 81

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

Cited – NT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc QBD 13-Apr-2018
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute
The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598363

The complainant requested access to view the original file and documents relating to a named company’s work in maintaining memorial gardens in the town of Prestatyn. The Council has not provided a clear response to the request and does not appear to have applied the relevant access regime. Based on the nature of the request and the information disclosed to the complainant to date, the Commissioner considers that the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 are likely to be the relevant legislation under which the requested should have been considered. The Commissioner therefore reminds the Council of its obligations under the EIR and requires it to disclose the relevant information or apply a relevant exception to disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 2.1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0382509

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.530779

The complainant requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 any communications between the public authority and ministers or officials in the Government of Iceland, the Icelandic FSA and the Central Bank of Iceland regarding Landsbanki that were forwarded to the Treasury between 4 October 2008 and 8 October 2008. The public authority provided some information and withheld other information by virtue of section 44 [a statutory bar] and section 40(2) [third party personal data]. The complainant referred the application of section 44 to the Commissioner. The Commissioner has determined that the statutory bar found in section 348 of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 was applied correctly to all of the information withheld by virtue of section 44. He has found procedural breaches of sections 10(1), but requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50362418

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.530736

The complainant requested relevant recorded information about the ethnic breakdown of teaching staff in schools and the same breakdown for teaching staff in relation to disciplinary matters. The Council provided the recorded information that it held, but responded late. The complainant asked the Commissioner to issue a formal Decision Notice about the delays he experienced. The Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 10(1) in its handling of the request. He requires no remedial steps to be taken as the information that it held was provided to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50394277

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.530782

The complainant made an information request to the British Broadcasting Corporation for information about the maternity/paternity pay that it had incurred in the four years prior to the request. The BBC withheld the requested information, claiming that it was outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act because it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information in question was held to a significant extent for the purpose of journalism, art or literature. Therefore the BBC 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:

[2009] UKICO FS50275712

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.532369

The complainant requested information about the individual who had complained to the Environment Agency about the complainant’s septic tank and sought a copy of the letter of complaint. The Commissioner finds that much of the information is personal data relating to the complainant and was therefore exempt from disclosure by virtue of regulation 5(3) of the EIR, which was not cited by the Agency. He also found that the remaining information in the letter is personal data relating to third parties and that it is exempt by virtue of regulations 13(1) and (2)(a) as the disclosure of it would breach the first data protection principle, and the Agency had acted correctly in withholding that information. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2008/0054 has been dismissed.
EIR 13: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FER0152885

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.532649

The complainant requested information from the public authority relating to complaints and correspondence about websites he was involved with. The public authority refused to deal with the request on the grounds that it was vexatious, citing section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner finds that the public authority failed to provide adequate reasons that the complaint was vexatious and accordingly directs that the public authority either disclose the information or issue a refusal notice in compliance with section 17(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50384900

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.530769

The complainant requested copies of the instructions to counsel and the corresponding legal opinion obtained by the London Borough of Barnet Council (‘the Council’) in regards to its decision to rescind a deed of agreement and the associated restrictive covenant. The Council refused the request pursuant to section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the Act’), claiming that the public interest favoured maintaining the legal professional privilege exemption. However, the Commissioner has found that the withheld information should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘EIR’). As a result, the Commissioner considers that the Council breached regulation 14(3) in failing to provide a refusal notice in accordance with the EIR. Nevertheless, in transferring the relevant arguments over to the EIR, the Commissioner has determined that the information does attract legal professional privilege and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception provided by regulation 12(5)(b).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50223362

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.532155

The complainant requested information relating to the cost of sealing and checking taxi meters, along with copies of specified accounts. The complainant did not receive a substantive response within the statutory timeframe and therefore complained to the Commissioner. Prior to the Commissioner commencing his investigation, the Council provided the information to the complainant. The complainant remained dissatisfied with the handling of his request and requested a formal Decision Notice to address the delays he had experienced. The Commissioner finds that the public authority breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in its handling of the request. An appropriate response has now been provided and the Commissioner does not therefore require remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50369267

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.530780

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50474256

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.528127

The complainant wrote to Hayle Harbour Authority (HHA) and requested information relating to its dredging activities. HHA claimed that it did not constitute a public authority for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and was not therefore obliged to respond to the request in accordance with that piece of legislation. It did, however, direct the complainant to its website for further information on dredging. The Commissioner has decided that HHA is a public authority under the EIR and, as such, is required to respond to the request in accordance with its provisions.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0375670

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.530742

The complainant has requested a report written by a particular individual relating to the Environment Agency’s (EA) Handling of the Determination Process. The EA refused to disclose the document requested under regulation 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b), 13(1) and 5(3) EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that much of the withheld information is the complainant’s own personal data and is not therefore covered by the EIRs due to regulation 5(3) EIR. In terms of the withheld information which is not the complainant’s own personal data, the EA has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FER0495197

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.527342

The complainant made a request to the Environment Agency for information related to the Sunderland sewerage system. The Environment Agency refused the request on the basis that it was manifestly unreasonable under the exception from disclosure in regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and found that regulation 12(4)(b) applies and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. 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: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0473714

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.528189

The complainant requested reports held by the Environment Agency concerning the testing of incinerator bottom ash. The Environment Agency identified a draft version of one report provided to it by a stakeholder but refused to disclose this information on the basis of the exceptions contained at regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(f). The complainant asked the Commissioner to consider the application of these exceptions and also to establish whether the Environment Agency held any further information falling within the scope of his request. The Commissioner has concluded that the Environment Agency does not hold any further information falling within the scope of this request and that the information that has been located is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(4)(d). Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0133 has been disposed of by way of a consent order.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.d – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FER0210838

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.531500

The complainant asked the BBC for all information about ‘secondary explosions’ at the World Trade Centre between 9:00 and 18:00 on 11 September 2001. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded by the Act. The complainant referred this case to the Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’). The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC genuinely for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside the Act. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50416750

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.531047

The complainant requested information about Council properties sold to Council employees in specified years. The Council aggregated previous requests from the complainant, which asked for the same information over different time periods, and stated that to comply with the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner found that the Council had appropriately applied section 12(1) of the Act and requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50379420

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.530777

The complainant asked whether the Council had access to databases of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency and whether it had a partnership agreement in place with that Agency. The Council applied both sections 30 and 31 of the Act and refused to provide the requested information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council sought to rely on the exemption provided by section 23 of the Act. The Commissioner found that section 23(1) of the Act was engaged. The Commissioner found a procedural breach in the way the request was handled but requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50372101

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.530776

The complainant has requested from the Environment Agency copies of correspondence and internal communications related to [information redacted] and [information redacted] for the period 1 January 2012 until 12 March 2013. The Environment Agency refused to comply with the request on the basis that it was manifestly unreasonable for the purposes of regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception is engaged and that, in all the circumstances, the public interest favours maintaining the exception. As such the Commissioner does not require the Environment Agency to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0496259

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.528751

The complainant asked Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust for a considerable amount of information about his own whistle blowing case and the circumstances that led to his allegations. He asked for a mixture of his personal data and third party personal data. The Trust provided the complainant with some of his own personal data under the Data Protection Act. The complainant asked the Commissioner to issue a Decision Notice about the procedural issues that led to this case becoming protracted. The Commissioner finds that the Trust breached sections 10(1), 17(1) and 17(1)(c) of the Act. However, he requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50377306

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.530772

The complainant submitted a request for information about the costs of dealing with an incident involving the complainant’s property to the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. The Council failed to respond within the statutory time for compliance. Consequently the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10(1) of the Act. He does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50383410

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.530785

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT EA – 2011 – 0296

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.578247

The complainant has requested information on the funding of programmes on wind farms. The BBC explained that the specific information was not held; but, if held, it was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner considers that this information is not held but, if it was held, it was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50508540

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.528840

The complainant asked the Council to supply him with details of problems it was aware of on the Public Rights of Way network in a particular area together with the path numbers and nature of problems. The Council provided the requested information. The complainant then asked the Council to supply him with information that would allow him to identify the location of all the paths in question. He suggested that the Council supply him with copies of extracts from the relevant footpath map. The Council stated that the requested information was available from the Definitive Map and that it was available for inspection at the Council’s offices. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council stated that it considered regulations 6(1)(a) and (b) of the EIR to be engaged. The Commissioner has investigated and concludes that regulation 6(1)(b) is engaged and requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 6 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50382240

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.530778

Information Rights – Data Protection. The applicant appealed from refusal of his application for anonymity in his substantial appeal to the tribunal.
Held: The anonymity order was properly refused.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 441 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Moss v Information Commissioner CA 15-May-2020
This case concerns the principle of open justice and the application of orthodox principles to an application by a litigant for an anonymity order, namely, the balancing exercise between an individual’s Article 8 and 6 rights of the European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.643975