The complainant made requests to the BBC for information relating to the Eurovision Song Contest. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and has found that the requested information was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature and that therefore the public authority was not obliged to comply with parts I to V of the Act in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50163866

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.532202

The complainant requested the sum of money that was spent on the BBC’s Winter Olympics 2010 coverage. 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. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC correctly determined that the requested information is held for the purposes of journalism and therefore the BBC is 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 FS50313474

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.531700

The complainant requested information regarding the decision not to broadcast the Disasters Emergency Committee’s (DEC) appeal for Gaza. The public authority refused to provide the information claiming that it was outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. It was stated that the information was used for creating the public authority’s output and was closely associated with its creative activities. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information in question is held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature. Therefore the BBC was not required to comply with Parts I to V of the Act in relation to this request. 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 FS50236191

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.532212

The complainant has requested the disclosure of the costs incurred by the BBC to broadcast the Royal Wedding. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and therefore excluded from the FOIA. 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 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:

[2011] UKICO FS50393443

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.530927

The complainant has requested information about the number of occasions when the BBC has quoted, interviewed or featured the National Secular Society over a two year period. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded by the Act. The complainant complained 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 and did not fall inside the Act. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0272 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50397330

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.530929

The complainant requested the names of courts to which the BBC had applied for search warrants to determine the illegal use of a television receiver over a 5 year period. The BBC refused to disclose the information and relied on section 31(1)(a),(b),(d) and (g). The Commissioner decided that none of the exemptions at section 31 were engaged and that the information should be disclosed. The Commissioner also recorded a number of procedural breaches.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50249917

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.531698

The complainant requested the figures for complaints about bias made to the British Broadcasting Corporation Scotland by supporters of certain political parties. The BBC refused to provide the information claiming that it was derogated from the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information in question was held for the purposes of journalism, art and literature. He has therefore decided that the BBC was not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act in respect of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50301304

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.531699

The complainant asked the Home Office to provide information relating to European Arrest Warrants. The public authority stated that it did not hold some of the information and withheld the remainder using the exemptions in sections 23(1) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 27(1) (international relations) and 35(1) (formulation of government policy) of the Freedom of Information Act. At a very late stage the public authority added section 31(1) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that in relation to part of the request the public authority failed to identify that some information was held. However, it also correctly concluded that further information was either not held or fell outside the scope of the request. He has found that some information was properly withheld under sections 23(1) and 27(1) but that sections 35(1) and 31(1) were not engaged. The complainant is partly upheld. The public authority’s handling of the request resulted in a breach of certain procedural requirements of the Act as identified in this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50378248

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.530752

The complainant submitted four requests to the Big Lottery Fund (the Fund) all of which focused on its decision not to award funding for a particular application under its Village SOS initiative. The Fund disclosed some information but withheld further information on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(ii), 40(2) and 42 of the Act. The complainant subsequently contacted the Commissioner and it was agreed to focus the Commissioner’s investigation on two issues: the application of section 42 to withhold one email and whether further information was held falling within the scope of the fourth request. In considering this complaint the Commissioner concluded that all of the requested information constituted environmental information and therefore the requests should have been handled under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). Nevertheless, the Commissioner is satisfied that the Fund does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the fourth request and furthermore that the Fund was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) ‘the EIR equivalent to section 42’ to withhold the email in question.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50367522

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.530708

London Academy of Diplomacy and academic Professor Joseph Mifsud : Partially upheld

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 182 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.653970

The complainant is acting on behalf of the family of a deceased patient (‘Mr A’), and requested a copy of a Root Cause Analysis Report into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Mr A and another patient (‘Ms B’). This request was made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’) to Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust (the ‘Trust’). The Trust provided an edited version of the Report, stating that some information had been withheld under sections 31, 41, and 44 of the Act. During the course of the investigation the Trust also cited section 40 to withhold some of the information in question. The Trust also informed the Commissioner that it had disclosed the edited version of the Report to the complainant on a discretionary basis, outside of the Act. Therefore the Commissioner has focused his investigation on the parts of the Report not already disclosed by the Trust. After considering the details of the case the Commissioner decided that parts of the withheld information were correctly withheld under sections 40 and 41 of the Act. However, the Commissioner concluded that a small part of the withheld information was not exempt under any of the exemptions cited by the Trust. He also noted that the Trust had not cited an exemption to a small amount of the withheld information. He therefore believes that these sections of the Report should be disclosed. The Commissioner also decided that the Trust did not meet the requirements of sections 17(1), 17(1)(b) and 17(7) of the Act.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50124800

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.532651

The complainant has requested copies of legal advice provided to West Mercia Police (WMP) regarding complaints of illegal parking at the Stratstone Garage car dealership. The WMP refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered it vexatious. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and, therefore, WMP complied with the FOIA in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50413998

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.529249

The complainant requested information on the private equity investments made by the council on behalf of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF). The council refused to supply some of the information on the basis that it was subject to a confidentiality agreement between it and various investment organisations (section 41), and that a disclosure would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of some of the parties involved (section 43). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information should be disclosed on the basis that the public interest in knowing that public funds are being invested wisely overrides the public interest in protecting confidentiality in this instance. The Commissioner also believes that a disclosure would not prejudice the commercial interests of any party.
FOI 41: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50083667

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.532821

Looked after children in care : For applicant

Citations:

[2020] ScotIC 078 – 2020

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.655700

Citations:

[2022] UKFTT 2021 – 0107 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.671016

The complainant submitted 9 requests to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) all of which focused on the FSA’s regulation of Northern Rock. The FSA refused these requests on the basis that the aggregated cost of complying with them was estimated to exceed the appropriate cost limit of pounds 450. The Commissioner has considered the circumstances of this refusal and has concluded that all of the requests are sufficiently ‘similar’ so the FSA is entitled to aggregate the cost of complying with them. Furthermore, the Commissioner is satisfied that the FSA has provided a reasonable estimate which demonstrates that the cost of complying with the first request would exceed pounds 450 and thus the FSA is entitled to refuse to fulfil any of the 9 requests.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50198530

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.532091

The complainants submitted a request to Birmingham City Council (‘the Council’) for a year-by-year breakdown from 1992 onwards of those Neighbourhood Forums that were members of the Birmingham Association of Neighbourhood Forums. The Council advised the complainants that it does not hold the information requested in the format required, i.e. year-by-year. The Council did, however, provide the complainants with a list of those Neighbourhood Forums that were or had been members of the Birmingham Association of Neighbourhood Forums since 1992. Having considered the information available the Commissioner is satisfied that the information requested by the complainants is not held by the Council. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50133971

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.532978

The complainant requested copies of any evidence, which had not already been passed to her, in connection with an alleged speeding offence. This request ultimately became confined to the provision of a video tape which would show the recording of her alleged offence and all other motorists or pedestrians captured on the same footage. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 30(1)(a)(i) was appropriately applied and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He has not therefore considered the exemption at 40(2). The Commissioner also found that the public authority failed to respond to two earlier iterations of the request in breach of section 1(1). However he did not order any steps in relation to those requests as the decision notice deals with an identical request which was processed by the public authority under the Act. In relation to that request the Commissioner has found that the public authority breached sections 17(1)(b) and 17(3)(b). The latter breach was remedied at internal review and in view of the content of this decision notice the Commissioner has not ordered any remedial steps in relation to the section 17 breaches.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50140994

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.532749

The complainant submitted a number of requests to the public authority during the period January 2005 to November 2005 about the public authority’s financial relationship with four local bus companies. In November 2005 the public authority refused to answer any further requests on this issue from the complainant. The Commissioner has decided that the public authority were correct to refuse to answer the complainant’s latest request on the basis that it was vexatious, although the public authority failed to provide a proper refusal notice citing section 14. The Commissioner has also decided that in responding to the complainant’s earlier requests the public authority breached section 10 several times by failing to respond to a number of requests within 20 working days. The Commissioner is satisfied that in responding to the requests the public authority provided all of the information covered by the requests, with the exception of one request. However, the Commissioner considers that the public authority could have also refused to answer this request on the basis that it was vexatious and therefore has not ordered the public authority to fulfil the outstanding parts of this request.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50110741

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.532824

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 2010 – 0174(GRC)

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.461778

The complainant has requested information relating to the design, construction and use of on-site parking facilities from the period from 1 September 2008 to date. The School refused to provide the requested information under regulation 12(4)(b) and 12(4)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that Acklam Grange School (the School) has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50427778

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.529254

The complainant requested an audit report of South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS Trust’s (the ‘Trust’) finances for 2004-2005. The Trust refused to provide this information and cited the exemption at section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’), stating that the disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs, and would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice and the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation. After reviewing the information and considering the case, and the public interest in maintaining this exemption, the Commissioner has decided that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing the information. He therefore decided that the Trust was wrong to withhold the information in question under section 36 of the Act, and, as such, was in breach of section 1 of the Act. He has also decided that the Trust failed to satisfy the requirements of section 17 in that it issued an inadequate refusal notice, when informing the complainant that there would be a delay in it responding to his request due to the consideration of the public interest test. In view of this decision the Commissioner requires the Trust to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50109031

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.532971

The complainant requested a list of the delegates who had attended an event organised by the Eastern Cheshire NHS Primary Care Trust (the ‘PCT’) as part of a programme of public consultation called the Future Health Care Project, together with their contact details and their ‘status information’. The PCT provided a list of the job titles of the delegates and the organisations that they represented. However, it refused to provide the names and contact details of the delegates, and cited the exemption at section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘FOIA’), stating it believed that the disclosure would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the ‘DPA’). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the PCT informed him that it no longer sought to rely on an exemption to withhold the majority of the information – it now sought only to withhold the contact details, where the delegates had provided personal contact details, i.e. residential addresses, personal email accounts. After investigating the matter the Commissioner decided that the PCT had breached the requirements of section 1, in so far as it had cited an exemption which it had subsequently partially withdrawn. The Commissioner also concluded that the public authority had breached the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA by failing to issue an adequate refusal notice. He did, however, uphold the PCT’s decision to withhold the personal contact details under section 40 of the FOIA. Central and Eastern Cheshire NHS Primary Care Trust has now taken over the Eastern Cheshire NHS Primary Care Trust’s responsibilities, and therefore this Notice is addressed to it.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50101815

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.532946

The complainant requested that the public authority disclose information concerning its instructions to a firm of solicitors in relation to a particular matter. The public authority provided some of the information but not all of it relying upon section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (legal professional privilege) in respect of the balance. The Commissioner has reviewed the information in question and is satisfied that the public authority has applied the section 42 exemption correctly to part of the information only. The public authority is accordingly directed to disclose the part of the information which he does not accept as being covered by the exemption in section 42. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority is in breach of section 17 of the Act.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50094069

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.532831

The complainant requested information relating to the 15 occurrences in the past year of the Western Health and Social Care Trust’s responding to urgent calls by taxi as no ambulances were available. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has not handled the complainant’s request in accordance with the provisions of FOIA as it has incorrectly applied sections 40(2) (by virtue of section 40(3)(i)(a)) and 41 to the withheld information. It has also breached sections 1(1)(b), 10(1) and 17(1)(b) of FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50383013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.529250

The complainant requested the public authority to provide it with lists of safety studies carried out on two named pesticide ingredients. The public authority refused, relying upon an exemption under section 22 of the
FOI 22: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50094226

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.532848

The complainant requested information relating to the Grant of a Lease of lands between the South Eastern Education and Library Board (the SEELB) and a developer. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the SEELB was correct to withhold the information within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemption at section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) does not require the SEELB to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50391949

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.529229

The complainant requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 copies of all papers (minutes, reports, agendas and all other documents) for the closed parts of all board of directors meetings held by the Trust since 1 July 2009. The Trust responded that the costs limit [section 12(1)] applied and provided no information. The complainant requested an internal review and the Trust upheld its decision. The complainant referred this case to the Commissioner. The Commissioner has found that section 12(1) has not been applied appropriately. The Commissioner orders the Trust to reprocess the request within the next 35 days without relying on section 12.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50325112

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.530815

The complainant supplied the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (the ‘DVLA’) with a list of vehicle registration numbers, together with details of the vehicles models and colours, and asked it to confirm whether Welwyn Hatfield District Council had made ‘non-fee paying’ enquiries in order to obtain the details of the registered vehicle keepers of those vehicles. The DVLA refused to supply this information, citing section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The DVLA claimed that this information was personal data, and that its disclosure would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner decided that the DVLA was correct in its application of section 40(2) and that the information should be withheld. Therefore the Commissioner does not require the DVLA to take any further action in this case.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50127657

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.532991

Dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 2013 – 0234 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.526481

Information rights – Freedom of information – qualified exemptions

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 212 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.466741

The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with Part 1 of the Act. He has decided that exemptions in sections 36 and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are engaged and, in the case of the former, that the balance of the public interest favours withholding the information sought. Accordingly there is no remedial action that the Commissioner requires DTI to take. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
FOI 36: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50086622

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.532950

The complainant has requested information relating to an application for discretionary relief from non-domestic rates for a specified commercial property. Information was disclosed, with names of some individuals contained in the information redacted, applying the provisions of the exemption at section 40 of FOIA to comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA). Further information was redacted, citing the exemption at section 31 of FOIA which relates to law enforcement. The complainant has appealed Birmingham City Council’s use of the exemptions at sections 31 and 40 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has correctly withheld the personal data, redacted from the information disclosed to the complainant under section 40, but the exemption at section 31 is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information redacted under the provisions of section 31(1)(a) of FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50408377

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.529262

The complainant asked the public authority for a copy of legal advice supplied to it by its legal adviser in connection with a planning issue. The public authority withheld it under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 claiming legal professional privilege and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner found that the requested information should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Nevertheless the claim that the information was subject to legal professional privilege still applied and the information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of regulation 12(5)(b).
EIR 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50091315

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.532838

The complainant requested a copy of Counsel’s advice that the authority had obtained in relation to a planning application and the documents that the authority had provided Counsel with the instructions. The authority refused to supply the complainant with the information citing section 42 of the Act, legal professional privilege. The authority did however, refer the complainant to a summary of the advice that it had circulated. The Commissioner finds that the information requested falls within the definition of environmental information and so is dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. In this case, there is no difference in outcome resulting from the application of the Regulations as opposed to the Act. The Commissioner also finds that by referencing the advice received from Counsel in the publicly available summary, the authority have waived privilege and the relevant exception, 12(5)(b), is therefore, not engaged. Furthermore, the enclosures are separate, discrete documents and are not just part of the instructions and so again, the exception is not engaged. The authority is required to provide the complainant with the information requested.
EIR 5: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FER0081580

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.532982

The complainants requested background information about the way the public authority had dealt with one of their requests. The public authority provided some information and also relied on the exemption at section 36 of the FOIA. The complainants raised various issues to do with the handing of their request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority dealt appropriately with the request. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50430276

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.529264

Citations:

[2017] ScotIC 023 – 2017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578917

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50080312

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.533031

The complainant requested an explanation of an entry in the Council’s financial statements labelled as ’employment advice’. The Council refused the request under sections 40(2), 41 and 42 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and finds that the Council correctly applied section 40(2) of the Act to the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50360825

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.530619

The complainant requested information related to the investigation of possible insider trading leading up to September 11 2001. The FSA withheld the information under section 44 and section 12. The Commissioner investigated the application of the two exemptions and found that section 44 was engaged and upheld the FSA’s assertion that to provide some of the information would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner found that in failing to inform the complainant of its reliance on section 12 in the refusal notice the FSA was in breach of section 17 of the Act.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50118129

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.532994

Bromesberrow Parish Council (the ‘Council’) received a request for information from two complainants. The complainants requested information concerning a donation the Council had allegedly made to a miners’ memorial, and the reasons why the public were not made aware of this donation. The complainants did not receive a response and so complained, separately, to the Commissioner. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the Council confirmed that no such donation had been made and the requested information was therefore not held by the Council. The Council issued a fees notice totalling pounds 560 to the complainants to cover the cost of staff time spent on this matter. The complainants indicated they wished to complain about the fees notices, and so the Commissioner asked to consider both complaints together in determining whether the fees notice was lawful. The Commissioner has concluded that whilst the Council has confirmed that it does not hold the information requested by the complainants, it did so late, and was therefore not entitled to issue a fees notice in respect of the request.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50160186

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.532980

The ICO has served an enforcement notice on Staffordshire County Council after the council breached the Data Protection Act when it mishandling of a subject access request.

Citations:

[2012] UKICO 2012-27

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.529233

Vexatious requests – role of advice previously given under section 16(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in determining whether present request is vexatious within the meaning of section 14 of the 2000 Act.

Citations:

[2021] UKUT 308 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 14 16(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.671292

ICO The complainant requested a copy of a document which was used as an informal guide by some of the public authority’s staff to assist with decisions related to the recognition of overseas qualifications when recruiting students The public authority refused to disclose the document on the basis of the exemption contained in section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the Act. The Commissioner determined that section 43(2) was not applicable and ordered that the withheld information be disclosed to the complainant. He also found the public authority in breach of sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50163364

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.532742

The complainant made several requests to the public authority for information relating to ‘listed events’, ie major sporting events subject to special rules on broadcasting coverage. The public authority provided some of the information but withheld other elements, citing the exemptions contained in section 35(1)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner decided that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure, and therefore ordered the DCMS to disclose the withheld information. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 35: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50097810

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.532987

The complainant requested copies of various bankruptcy orders, to which the public authorities informed the complainant that the information was not held. The Commissioner is satisfied that this was communicated to the complainant and furthermore, that the duty to advise and assist under section 16 was adhered to.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50074578

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.533290