Category: Information

The Chagos Refugees Group In Mauritius Chagos Social Committee (Seychelles) v Information Commissioner (Environmental Information Regulations 2004): FTTGRC 4 Sep 2012

Whether adequate search for information – proportionality – whether Tribunal should infer that further information held – whether material retained by external cnsultants was information held by the public authority – exception – regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications – need for safe place – public interest balance – regulation 12(1)(b), regulation 12(2) – weighing of balance in case where disclosure would be of a relatively small amount of information on matters of considerable legitimate public interest

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 2011 – 0300 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Environment

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.464742

Department for Transport v Information Commissioner (Dismissed The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009): FTTGRC 16 Jun 2014

Acceptance of notice of withdrawal.

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 2014 – 0076 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.534378

Re H (Adoption: Disclosure of Information ): 1995

An application was made by the sister of an adopted child for disclosure of the records held in order to allow her to make contact and to warn her of the fact that she might have an inherited genetic disease.
Held: The jurisdiction to grant such an order ‘should be exercised very sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.’ and ‘Mr Blake, for the Registrar General, contends that as a matter of public policy the discretion should be exercised very sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. He prays in aid of his submission the decision of His Honour Judge Blagden almost 40 years ago and the cautious language with which Judge Blagden acceded to the application in circumstances which were clearly exceptional.
Mr McFarlane, for NORCAP [the agency seeking the order], submits that had Parliament intended that the discretion should only be exercised very sparingly, and in exceptional circumstances, it would surely have so stated. In the absence of any statutory words Mr McFarlane submits that the burden upon the applicant should be no heavier than the ordinary burden to show cause by establishing a case of sufficient weight and justification so as to persuade the judge of the reasonableness of the order sought.
Of the rival submissions I prefer that of Mr McFarlane. Since Judge Blagden considered the parallel section in an earlier statute, attitudes to adoption, its consequences, and the importance of the biological origin and the psychological attachments have changed profoundly.’

Judges:

Thorpe J

Citations:

[1995] 1 FLR 236

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976 50(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lawson v Registrar General 1956
An application was made for disclosure by the Registrar of his records so that an adopted child could be contacted and informed of a significant legacy to which she would be entitled.
Held: Disclosure of such records was severely restricted, . .

Cited by:

Cited – In Re L (a Minor) (Adoption: Disclosure of Information) CA 12-Dec-1996
A request was made for an order that the Registrar General should provide information from his registers and records to enable a registered charity called the Post Adoption Centre to trace the applicant’s adopted daughter P, who had been made the . .
Cited – X (Adopted Child: Access To Court File) FC 9-Sep-2014
The applicant’s father had been adopted. Both he and the adopting parents had since died. The applicant now sought disclosure of the records to reveal her the court record of her father’s adoption order.
Held: The order should be made. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Adoption, Information

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.230136

Monitor (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Feb 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to an inquiry made by Monitor regarding an NHS Foundation Trust. Monitor disclosed some of the requested information, however it refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 31, 33 and 41 of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(c) of FOIA is engaged in relation to the entirety of the withheld information and that the public interest in all the circumstances of the cases favours maintaining the exemption. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50460738

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.527997

Wesley Housing Association Ltd (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Oct 2008

The complainant made a request to Wesley Housing Association under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 for access to all documents held and produced by Wesley in relation to the development of sites at Crumlin Road Methodist Church and 237-247 Tennent Street. Wesley did not provide the information as it stated that Housing Associations were not public authorities for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that Wesley is a public authority within the meaning of Regulation 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d)(i) of the EIR. This Decision Notice requires Wesley to either provide the complainant with the requested information or to issue a formal refusal notice, stating which exceptions (if any) under the EIR it believes to be applicable.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 2.2 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 2.2 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FER149772

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.532751

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Jul 2007

The complainant requested information from the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the Council) relating to a consultation exercise it had carried out on the structure of parish councils. The Council supplied some of the information requested however withheld some of it on the grounds that the section 40 (personal information) exemption applied. The Commissioner has decided that the Council was correct to apply section 40 to some parts of the withheld information, but not to others. As the Council has now provided the complainant with all of the information to which the Commissioner believes he is entitled, it is not required to take any further steps in respect of this complaint. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
FOI 40: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50132169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.532983

Department for Communities and Local Government (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Mar 2012

The complainant requested correspondence held by the Department for Communities and Local Government relating to ownership of the CON29 enquiries form, and information about the formation of a working group to review the questions on the current version of the form. The DCLG responded that it did not hold any information on the latter point and refused to disclose information about the CON29 form, citing the exemption at section 42(1). During the Information Commissioner’s investigation it substituted section 41(1) for section 42(1) in respect of some of that information. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the DCLG withheld some of the information correctly under the exemptions at section 41(1) and 42(1). However, some of the information was not covered by the exemption at section 41(1). The DCLG also breached section 17(1) of the Act by introducing an exemption during the investigation which it had not specified on a refusal notice or during the internal review. The Information Commissioner accepts that the DCLG did not hold any information in respect of the second part of the request. However, by failing to confirm to the complainant that it did not hold the information within the statutory time for compliance it breached section 10(1). The Information Commissioner requires the DCLG to disclose the information which is not covered by section 41(1) (bundles 3, 4 and 10) to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50412068

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.529276

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Central Government): ICO 14 Feb 2020

The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking a copy of a particular letter dating from 1997 between the British High Commissioner in Wellington and the Cook Islands Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs. The FCO explained that it could not locate the requested letter. The complainant argued that it was likely that the document in question would still be held by the FCO. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the FCO does not hold the requested letter. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0113 under appeal.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50870253

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.651405

Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Oct 2008

The complainant requested the full details of 22 non-safety recalls which were recorded on the public authority’s database in 2006. The public authority withheld the information by virtue of the exemptions contained in sections 41 and 43(2) of the Act. After considering the case, the Commissioner found that neither of the exemptions were engaged and ordered the public authority to disclose the requested information. He also found the public authority in breach of sections 1(1)(b), 17(1) and 17(3) of the Act.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 41: Upheld FOI 42: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50146033

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.532750

Lincolnshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Feb 2007

The complainant requested copies of statements made by individuals about their use of the supposed route of a public footpath. The public authority released copies of statements where the writers consented but refused to release the remaining statements on the basis they were exempt under section 40 of the Act. Having investigated, the Commissioner is satisfied that the information was appropriately withheld although the Environmental Information Regulations should have been applied and the information withheld under Regulations 12 (5)(f). The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has partially upheld this appeal.
EIR 12.5.f: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FER0086605

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.532842

University of Manchester (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Feb 2012

The complainant has requested all information held by the University of Manchester [‘UoM’] (and its subsidiaries) about him and his company. UoM replied that its subsidiaries handled requests themselves and advised him to make a new request (which he did). For UoM, it asked that the complainant specified the individuals with which he had contact with. A series of phone calls occurred and the complainant refined his request to cover ten named individuals. UoM responded that it held only the communications from the complainant and no further relevant recorded information in relation to those ten individuals. The case was referred to the Commissioner and the Commissioner finds that the UoM was wrong in what it said, because it did hold relevant recorded information for the complainant’s request. However, he finds that the only information UoM holds is exempt by virtue of section 21 [reasonably accessible to the complainant through other means], section 40(1) [first party personal data] and section 42(1) [legal professional privilege]. He also finds that UoM breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) in failing to identify relevant recorded information or issuing a compliant refusal notice for the information that is exempt. He requires no further remedial steps to be taken in this case because it is not possible to remedy the procedural breaches that he has noted. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0055 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50427699

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.529238

Nursing and Midwifery Council (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Oct 2008

The complainant requested a statement that had been provided by a named nurse to the public authority. The public authority responded in accordance with the provisions of section 1(1)(a) (it confirmed or denied it held the information requested). After considering the case, the Commissioner finds that the public authority was excluded from its duty to respond to the request under section 1(1)(a) by virtue of the provisions of section 40(5)(b)(i) (exclusion from the duty to confirm or deny a public authority holds third party personal data) because in responding to the request, it had to disclose information which constitutes the personal data of the named nurse. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps in relation to the complainant’s request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50180310

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.532748

Horsham District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 12 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application for a proposed skate park. Horsham District Council disclosed a summary of some legal advice and withheld other information under the exception for adverse effect to the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that Horsham District Council disclosed all the (non-excepted) information it holds but in providing some information late it breached regulation 5(2); failed to conduct an internal review within 20 working days and breached regulation 11(4). Correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold legal advice. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 12(5)(b): Partly upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0559815

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.555208

Horsham District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 6 Sep 2016

The complainant has requested information related to a grant for Steyning Area Youth Service. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Horsham District Council does not hold further information relevant to this request. She does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50622035

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.571080

Horsham District Council (Local Government (District Council)) FS50546658: ICO 12 Jan 2015

The complainant has made a request to Horsham District Council (‘the council’) for information relating to classes, complaints, and staff training at a public leisure centre. The council refused the request on the basis that it was vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1). However, the council provided its response outside of 20 working days, and therefore breached the requirement of section 10(1).The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50546658

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.554705

Hertfordshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)) FS50626438: ICO 21 Jun 2016

The complainant has requested information relating to referrals to Hertfordshire Children’s Services by Health Visitors. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertfordshire County Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 12 of the FOIA where the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50626438

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.568323

Horsham District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 25 Jul 2016

The complainant has requested information relating to various planning applications which were approved by Horsham District Council. Most of the information sought by the complainant is available to him via the Council’s planning portal or has been provided to him. A small amount of information, comprised of an email and legal advice, has been withheld from the complainant on the grounds that legal professional privilege attaches to it. The Council has therefore applied the exception to disclosure provided by Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Horsham District Council has properly applied Regulation 12(5)(b) to the information it is withholding. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FER0619176

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.568450

Hertfordshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)) FS50620151: ICO 21 Jun 2016

The complainant has requested information relating to referrals to Hertfordshire Children’s Services. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertfordshire County Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 12 of the FOIA where the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50620151

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.568322

Horsham District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 14 Sep 2016

The complainant has requested emails between specific Councillors and a specific individual in relation to the Horsham District Planning Framework and a letter in a local newspaper. Horsham District Council initially stated that it does not hold the requested emails for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Horsham District Council does not hold the requested information. He does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
EIR 5: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FER0616686

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.571079

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50622748: ICO 30 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for a copy of the legal advice referred to in the Prime Minister’s announcement that a Royal Air Force remotely piloted aircraft had killed three people near Raqqa in Syria. The Cabinet Office sought to withhold the requested information on the basis of the exemptions contained at the following sections of FOIA: 23(1) (security bodies), 26(1) (defence), 27(1) (international relations), 35(1)(c) (Law Officers’ advice), 40(2) (personal data) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has concluded the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) of FOIA.
FOI 23: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50622748

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.569094

Arch The Northumberland Development Company (Private Companies): ICO 5 Jan 2015

The complainant has requested information held by Arch: The Northumberland Development Company (‘Arch’) in relation to the Berwick Portas Pilot. Arch responded withholding some of the information. During the course of the investigation, it transpired that the withheld information was now otherwise available to the complainant, but he was concerned that further information was held which had not been located. Some further information was then discovered and disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that Arch failed to comply fully with section 1 as all the requested information had not been provided in response to the request. The additional information was provided outside 20 working days, and so the Commissioner finds that Arch breached section 10. In addition to this, he finds that the initial response did not provide adequate advice and assistance and therefore Arch breached section 16. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities all the information has now been located and provided. As such he does not require Arch to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 16: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50547780

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.554689

Hertfordshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 11 Feb 2016

The complainant has requested information relating to a village green application which was made to the council by a local resident. The council provided some information however it withheld other information on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) applied, and also Regulation 13 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply 12(5)(b) to the information as the public interest rests in its disclosure. He has however decided that it was correct to apply Regulation 13.The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the information which the council considered exempt under Regulation 12(5)(b).
EIR 12(5)(b): Upheld FOI 13: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FER0599280

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.560907

County Durham NHS Primary Care Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Feb 2007

The complainant requested a summary of the medical care provided to her late daughter. This request was sent to Easington NHS Primary Care Trust, the responsibilities of which have now passed to County Durham NHS Primary Care Trust. In order to provide this information it would have necessitated providing information from the deceased person’s medical records. The public authority refused to provide this information and cited the exemption at section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’), stating that the applicant was not the deceased person’s next of kin. Further to this the public authority noted that the deceased person had expressed a wish to her GP for details of her healthcare not to be disclosed to her parents. After examining the submissions by both parties the Commissioner concluded that the use of section 41 was valid. However, the Commissioner also concluded that the public authority initially issued an inadequate refusal notice, and therefore did not comply with section 17 when refusing the original request.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50111780

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.532832

Royal Surrey County Hospital (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Feb 2007

The complainant made three requests to the public authority for copies of two x-rays taken during the course of the medical care given to her late husband. The complainant alleged that the public authority failed to respond to the first of these requests within 20 working days. The complainant also complained that the information provided in response to these requests was inadequate because of the poor quality of the first x-ray and the fact that the second x-ray did not fulfil her request. Having investigated the matter, the Commissioner has decided that the information provided did fulfil the complainant’s requests although the public authority did not respond to the first request within 20 working days. The Commissioner has also decided that the information was exempt under section 21 of the Act because it was accessible to the applicant under the Access to Health Records Act. The Commissioner has established that the public authority failed to provide the complainant with a refusal notice citing section 21.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50128269

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.532850

East Sussex County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Feb 2007

The complainant requested information from the public authority about its dealings with a named company. The public authority refused to disclose relying upon section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. As this is an absolute exemption the public authority did not have to consider the public interest. The Commissioner has considered the exempt information in question and is satisfied that the public authority has applied section 44 correctly.
FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50082765

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.532837

Nether Poppleton Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jun 2011

The complainant requested copies of letters between the Poppleton Community Trust (PCT) and Nether Poppleton Parish Council (NPPC) on specific dates. NPPC responded providing copies of a number of letters but refused to comply with the remainder of the request on the grounds that the letter in question was of a personal nature and did not concern council business. The Commissioner investigated and has found that the information was not held by NPPC at the time of the request. However, NPPC breached certain procedural requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0144 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50313734

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.530592

Staffordshire Moorlands District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Feb 2007

The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with Part I of the Act. He considers that the information requested by the complainant constitutes environmental information. Therefore the information is exempt under section 39 of the Act and the request should have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘EIR’). The Commissioner is satisfied that the exceptions in Regulations 12 (4) (e) and 12 (5) (b) apply to the requested information, however in this case the public interest in maintaining the exception does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. Therefore the Council has breached Regulation 5 in failing to disclose information to the complainant. The Commissioner has therefore ordered the Council to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
EIR 12.4.e: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FER0069117

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.532852

Royal Mail (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Sep 2011

The complainant has requested the total remuneration figure received by each of the top 15 executives at Royal Mail for 2007/08 and 2008/09, with a separate breakdown of amounts received by each individual in respect of their pay rates, expenses, pension contributions and sharesave holdings. The complainant did not expect to be provided with the names and job titles of the individuals linked to the remuneration payments. The Commissioner’s decision is that Royal Mail has incorrectly applied section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA to information covered by the scope of the request. He does, however, find that some of the information constituted third party personal data and was exempt information under section 40(2) of FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50378443

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.530892

Croydon London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Sep 2011

The complainant requested a copy statement of her deceased daughter’s benefit account from a specific department within the London Borough of Croydon [the council]. The Information Commissioner’s [the Commissioner] decision is that the council has breached section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act [the Act] by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The council did however supply the complainant with the information she requested. This disclosure was made outside of the Act as the information in question would have been exempt from disclosure under the Act. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in respect of this complaint.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50413660

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.530823

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Jun 2011

The complainant submitted a request to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (the Council) for information from environmental records held on a property in London. The complainant specified that he wished to receive this information electronically. The Council provided the requested information in hard copy format. The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that the Council breached regulation 5(2) as it failed to make the requested information available as soon as possible. The Council also breached regulation 6(1) by failing to comply with the complainant’s request to make information available in a particular format. The Council also breached regulation 6(2)(c) by failing to advise the complainant of the enforcement and appeal provisions of the Act. The Commissioner requires the Council to make the requested information available to the complainant electronically within 35 days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0349664

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.530613

Oxford City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Feb 2007

The complainant requested details in relation to the sale of land at Minchery Farm (subsequently developed as the site for a football stadium and a cinema complex), bought from Oxford City Council by Firoka companies. The public authority refused to supply some of the information requested, citing section 41, information supplied in confidence, and section 43, commercial confidentiality. Following consideration of all relevant factors, the Information Commissioner’s decision is that the authority cannot rely on the exemptions and requires the authority to make the information available to the complainant.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50090744

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.532847

Architect Registration Board (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Feb 2007

The complainant asked for details of a settlement between the Architects Registration Board and a former Board member, including the costs of both parties. The Architects Registration Board refused, but is willing to supply information about its own costs. The Commissioner decided that the information requested was personal information the disclosure of which would breach the first data principle, and so was exempt under section 40 of the Act.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50075602

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.532826

Oil and Pipelines Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Jun 2011

The complainant asked the Oil and Pipelines Agency (the ‘public authority’) to provide information relating to a copy of a Site Safety Report. The public provided some of the Report but withheld the remainder citing the exceptions in sections 12(5)(a) and 13(1) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR). The complainant has only contested the withholding of information in two appendices of the Report which is withheld under exception 12(5)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception is engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs that in disclosure. The complaint is not upheld. The public authority’s handling of the request also resulted in breaches of certain procedural requirements of the Act as identified in this Notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0143 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0359172

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.530597

Hertfordshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Feb 2007

The complainant requested information on private equity investments made by the council. 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). 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.
FOI 41: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50086121

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.532839

Mayer v EFSA: ECFI 17 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Seconded national expert – EFSA rules on SNEs – Decision not to extend the secondment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual – Protection of personal data – Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 – Applications for a declaration and seeking the issue of directions – Written pleadings supplementing the originating application – Amendments to the heads of claim – Admissibility

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:100, [2017] EUECJ T-493/14

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575271

Dr G J C Bruce (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant made a request to Aldergate Medical 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 FS50410228

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.530731

Bishop Burton College (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant requested the exact post or job titles of the 17 individuals that the College made redundant. The College provided a summary of the posts, but explained that it considered that the exact information was exempt and maintained its position in its internal review. The complainant referred the case to the Commissioner. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the College agreed to disclose the full job titles for six of the individuals. For the remainder, it confirmed that it believed that sections 40(2) and 41(1) applied to the post titles. The Commissioner considers that section 40(2) has been applied appropriately to the outstanding withheld information. He has, however, noted a number of procedural breaches. He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50382867

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.530709

Consumer Council for Water (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant requested information about ‘grievance complaints’ and ‘internal complaints and appeals from staff’. The CCW refused to provide this information under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. During the investigation the complainant agreed to limit his complaint to the procedural aspects of the case. The Commissioner finds that the CCW failed to meet the requirements of sections 17(1), 17(1)(b) and 17(7)(b).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50383021

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.530716

Environment Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Sep 2010

The complainant made a multipart request to the Environment Agency relating to its monitoring of the River Test in Hampshire after a pollution incident in 2008. The Environment Agency initially informed the complainant that the request was likely to be considered manifestly unreasonable and asked him to narrow his request. The complainant did narrow his request, however the Environment Agency subsequently claimed that the request was still manifestly unreasonable under Regulation 12(4)(b) as it would take in excess of 60 hours for it to respond. The Commissioner has considered the request. His decision is that the request was not manifestly unreasonable given that the Environment Agency did not provide adequate proof that it’s estimate for complying with the request was reasonable. He has ordered that the Environment Agency either provide the complainant with the requested information in accordance with regulation 5(1) or issue a further refusal notice as required by regulation 14(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FER0253026

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.531652

Environment Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Mar 2010

The complainant requested information in relation to non-prosecution concerning illegal landfill gas emissions at Welbeck landfill site. The Environment Agency refused to disclose this information on the basis that regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR applied, and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosure. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that both regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) were engaged, and that the public interest in maintaining the exceptions outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. Therefore he has decided that the Environment Agency was correct to withhold the information in question.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FER0220864

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.531346

Carmarthenshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant made a request to inspect 23 building control files relating to the conversion of barns or other similar outbuildings to dwellings. The Council confirmed that it held 20 of the requested files (selected from a list provided to the complainant by the Council) but could not locate files for three other properties that the complainant had requested (these were not on the list provided by the Council). The Council considered that the findings of the Commissioner in decision notice FER0303754, regarding a previous complaint by the same individual, were directly relevant to this request. The Council therefore referred the complainant to that decision notice and stated that the 20 building control files he had requested were exempt from disclosure under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner considers that that the Council appropriately applied regulation 13 and requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0200 has been disposed of by way of a consent order.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Partly Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0375722

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.530715

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Nhs Foundation Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant requested that Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust should provide her with all the information it held in relation to her deceased mother. The Trust confirmed that it held a health care file but refused to disclose it under section 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The complainant argued that the information should have been refused under section 21 of the Act as she believes she should have access to the information under the Access to Health Records Act 1990. The Trust does not consider that the complainant is the personal representative of the deceased and has the right of access to the health care file under the AHRA. The Commissioner finds that the Trust was correct to apply section 41(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50328157

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 41(1), Access to Health Records Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.530712

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Jan 2012

The complainant has requested information about complaints received regarding the BBC’s coverage of the royal wedding on 29 April 2011 and the total cost of broadcasting it. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and therefore 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:

[2012] UKICO FS50404473

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.529037

Environment Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jul 2012

ICO The complainant has requested transcripts of interviews conducted by the Environment Agency with the Deputy Chief Executive of Heart of England NHS Trust and a senior manager about waste management at the Trust. The complainant also asked for a letter sent by the EA to the Trust in February 2007. The Environment Agency withheld some information under regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(f). The Commissioner considered some information to be the personal data of third parties and therefore considered regulation 13(1). In addition to this the EA identified some information as being the personal data of the applicant and applied regulation 5(3). The EA has considered this latter information separately under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) as a basis for withholding the requested information. He has therefore not gone on to consider the application of the other exceptions. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0172 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0439925

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.529623

Environment Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Jul 2013

The complainant has requested information from the Environment Agency relating to coastal erosion. This was in the form of 2 separate requests. The Environment Agency refused to disclose information in relation to the complainant’s second request, applying regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR as a basis for non-disclosure. The Environment Agency provided information in relation to the complainant’s first request, however this was provided outside the statutory 20 working day time limit as set out in regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner considers that the Environment Agency has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the complainant’s second request, however it has breached regulation 5(2) in relation to the first request by providing the requested 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:

[2013] UKICO FER0469276

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.528453

Environment Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Jun 2012

ICO The complainant requested information from the Environment Agency about the prosecution of an individual who was found guilty of causing a pollution incident which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of fish at a nearby fishery. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Agency has correctly applied regulations 12(3) and 13(1) of the EIR. He does however find that the Agency failed to comply with regulation 14 of the EIR. The complainant also asked the Commissioner to consider whether the Agency breached regulations 6(1)(a), 9(1) and 12(11) of the EIR. The Commissioner has not upheld these aspects of the complaint. The Commissioner does not require the Agency to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 9 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0422877

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.529555

Environment Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Jun 2011

The complainant requested a number of items of information about a specified landfill site. The EA confirmed that it held information relevant to the request and explained that it considered the information was exempt by virtue of the exception found in Regulation 12(5)(e) [confidentiality of commercial or industrial information]. During the course of the investigation, the EA disclosed redacted versions of the information that it had withheld. It continued to rely on Regulation 12(5)(e) for the remaining information. The Commissioner finds that Regulation 12(5)(e) has been appropriately applied to the remaining withheld information. However, he has recorded a number of procedural breaches in relation to the failure to reply in accordance with the EIR but requires no remedial steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0156 allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 7 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0317507

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.530548

South Yorkshire Police (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Feb 2007

The complainant requested a copy of a photograph of a police crew bus caught speeding. The public authority refused to release the information on the basis it was exempt under sections 30, 38 and 40 of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions at sections 38 and 40 were not engaged and that whilst section 30 was engaged, the public interest in disclosing the information was not outweighed by the public interest in withholding it. Consequently, the complaint is upheld.
FOI 30: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50117048

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.532851

Royal Mail (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Feb 2007

The complainant requested, firstly, the number of complaints made to a delivery office of the Royal Mail over a specific period of time and, secondly, details of how many of these complaints were investigated and what action was taken as a result. Both parts of the request were refused on the basis that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests). The public authority also subsequently argued that responding to the second part of the complainant’s request would exceed the appropriate fees limit under section 12. The Commissioner concluded that section 43(2) was not applicable to the first part of the request but that section 12 applied to the second part of the request. In addition, he found that the public authority had not complied with section 17(5) as the refusal notice did not refer to section 12 as a basis for refusing the request.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50088494

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.532849

Wokingham District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Jan 2007

The complainant made fifteen requests for information to the Council over a period of three months. The complainant requested information concerning a planning application submitted by his neighbour, subsequent complaints he had made about the matter, and other related information. Some of the requests were for information which falls within the definition of environmental information as set out in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and other requests were made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Council claimed to have provided all relevant, recorded information it held to the complainant. The Commissioner has investigated and is satisfied that all the requested information held by the Council in recorded form has now been provided to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FER0102914

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.532825

Newham London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Jun 2011

The complainant submitted several requests for information about a Controlled Parking Zone. The Council initially provided some of the requested information, withheld other information, and stated some information was not held. Upon internal review, the Council applied the exclusions at sections 14(1) and 14(2). The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that the Council correctly applied section 14(1). However, the Council breached section 17(5) by failing to provide the complainant with a notice setting out its reliance on section 14 within the statutory time for compliance of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50320163

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.530593

Norfolk County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Apr 2007

The complainant requested a copy of a report into the Norwich Central Library fire of 1994. The public authority withheld some parts of the report under both sections 36 and 40 of the Act and other parts under section 36 only. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the public authority released the information withheld under section 36 only. The Commissioner found that the public authority was correct to withhold the remaining information under section 40 of the Act and did not therefore consider the application of section 36 in relation to that information.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50087796

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.532912

Forest Heath District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Apr 2007

The complainant requested a copy of legal advice held by the public authority regarding the quorum necessary for a properly constituted meeting of the local Licensing Sub-Committee. The public authority initially declined relying solely upon an exemption under section 42 (‘section 42’) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’) claiming legal professional privilege and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. Following the Commissioner’s involvement, the public authority also referred to an exemption under section 41 (‘section 41’) of the Act stating that the information had been provided in confidence. The Commissioner considers that as the public authority did not itself commission the legal advice and instead obtained it from another public authority, it was wrong to rely upon the section 42 exemption. However, he is satisfied that the public authority was entitled to rely upon the section 41 exemption to withhold the information as the legal advice was shared with it as part of a confidential agreement. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal but later withdrawn.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50098767

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.532905