Category: Information

Children’s Academy Trust (Education (School)): ICO 9 Nov 2016

The complainant has requested information relating to a confidential meeting that took place on 31 August 2015 to discuss the Head teacher of one of the schools within the trust. The trust released a redacted version of the minutes and informed the complainant that it wished to withhold information under section 30(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner considers section 40 of the FOIA should have been applied in this case. She has considered the contents of the withheld information and she considers that section 40 of the FOIA applies. Although the Commissioner requires no further action to be taken, she has noted that the trust breached sections 1, 10 and 17 of the FOIA whilst handling this request.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50623172

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.572951

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 11 Feb 2010

The complainant made 7 requests to the BBC for a series of information relating to its handling of his complaint about an edition of the programme ‘Panorama’. The BBC stated that some information was not held, some was outside the scope of the Act, other material constituted the complainant’s personal data and was therefore exempt under section 40(1) and for the remainder refused to comply on the basis that the cost of locating and retrieving relevant information would exceed the section 12(1) limit. The Commissioner’s investigation and decision is limited to requests 1 and 2. In view of two High Court decisions handed down on 2 October 2009 the BBC amended its original position and argued that all of the information relevant to requests 1 and 2 was outside the scope of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC correctly determined that the information relevant to requests 1 and 2 is all held to a significant extent for the purposes of art, journalism or literature and therefore the BBC is not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0042 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50265735

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.531256

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Mar 2012

The complainant has requested specific information about TV Licence enforcement. The BBC provided him with general information, but the complainant was not happy with the answer to three of his questions. The BBC explained that it did not hold any further relevant recorded information that could address those enquiries. During the course of his investigation, the BBC provided a further detailed explanation about the issues of concern as an attempted informal resolution to the complaint. The complainant accepted the content of the explanation, but still wanted a decision notice. The Commissioner finds that the BBC did not on the balance of probabilities hold any further relevant recorded information that answered the remaining three questions. He requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50397216

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.529260

Liverpool Womens NHS Foundation Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Feb 2007

The complainant requested a copy of a medical report written by a Consultant regarding the care of his late mother. This report was written by the Consultant following a visit to her home in 1991. The public authority offered to provide the complainant with a copy of the report under the Access to Health Records Act 1990, on receipt of proof that he was the deceased person’s personal representative. The public authority went on to state that they would accept a copy of his birth certificate as proof. The public authority refused to disclose the information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and cited the exemption at section 21 of the Act. Having considered both parties submissions the Commissioner found that the public authority had been correct in claiming the section 21 exemption. However, the Commissioner also concluded that the public authority had not complied with section 17(1), as it had failed to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days.
FOI 21: Not upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50127442

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.532843

North Yorkshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Jun 2011

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to North Yorkshire County Council for information about the dates on which particular road signs and road markings were installed on the A6136 Rimington Avenue in Richmond. The Council responded providing some of the requested information but stating that it did not hold other information in respect of the request. The Commissioner investigated and has concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the remaining information is not held by the Council and it therefore complied with section 1(1)(a) in denying that it held the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50357333

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.530595

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (Central Government): ICO 14 May 2021

The complainant made a six part request for information relating to the sharing of Registered Keeper data with private parking companies. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency refused the request citing both section 14(1) (vexatious request) and 14(2) of the FOIA (repeated request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA has failed to demonstrate that the request, as a whole, was vexatious. It was therefore not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. However, the Commissioner does accept that elements [5] and [6] of the request are repeated and therefore the DVLA was entitled to rely on section 14(2) of the FOIA to refuse those elements. The Commissioner requires the DVLA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to elements [1], [2], [3] and [4] of the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA.
FOI 14: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-51384

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.662999

Department of Trade and Industry (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Feb 2007

The complainant, on 4 January 2005, requested information from the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to the assessment by the Department of the application for grant aid made in relation to the complainant’s wave energy conversion system. The Department withheld the information on the basis that it is exempt under sections 36, 41 and 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner is satisfied that none of the withheld information falls within the terms of the exemptions under sections 41 or 43 of the Act. The Commissioner is satisfied that some of the information is exempt under section 40 (1) of the Act in that the information constitutes personal data of which the complainant is the data subject. He is also satisfied that other information is exempt under section 40 (2) of the Act in that it constitutes personal data about third parties and that disclosure would be unfair. Although the Commissioner is satisfied that the remaining information falls within the exemption set out at section 36 of the Act, he considers that the public interest in maintaining that exemption in the circumstances of this case does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure of that information. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Department has not dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with Part 1 of the Act. The Commissioner requires the Department to disclose to the complainant that information which is identified in correspondence to the Department served upon it with this Notice.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50069394

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.532835

Department of Trade and Industry (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Apr 2007

The complainant requested information from the public authority about its investigation into his 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 test. 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 FS50086783

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.532903

East Lindsey District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Sep 2011

ICO The complainant submitted a request to East Lindsey District Council (‘the council’) for information about planning permissions. The public authority stated that it did not hold any information relevant to the complainant’s requests. The Commissioner has investigated and is satisfied that the council does not hold any information that falls within the scope of the complainant’s requests. It has however breached regulation 14(3)(a) by failing to cite the exception at regulation 12(4)(a) in its refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further action. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0221 has been disposed of by way of a consent order.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0384061

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.530835

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Sep 2011

On 2 February 2010 the complainant requested information about the correspondence and communications between the MHRA and another organisation. The MHRA did not respond to this request. After correspondence with the Commissioner, it explained that it believed it was not obliged to respond to this request for information by virtue of section 17(6) because it was part of a pattern of requests that were vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner considered the complainant’s own personal data in an assessment made under the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘the DPA’). For the remainder of the information, the Commissioner considers that the MHRA was correct in finding that the request was vexatious under section 14(1) and that it did not need to answer it. The Commissioner has also found that the MHRA could rely on section 17(6) appropriately and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0238 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50364598

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.530862

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Sep 2011

The complainant requested information about Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council’s planning and regulation department. Although some of the information was provided, the council refused the remainder under section 12 as the cost of compliance exceeded the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied the costs exemption and that no further steps need be taken. However, the Commissioner also finds the following elements of the request were not dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act: the council failed to provide adequate advice and assistance under section 16(1) of the Act and the council failed to comply with section 17(5) as it did not say that it was relying on the costs exemption within 20 working days of receipt of the request. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0229 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50368305

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.530890

Nottingham City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Sep 2011

The complainant has requested an investigation report and supporting documentation, for a specified case before the public authority’s Standards Committee. His complaint is that he has not received a response to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottingham City Council failed to comply with the requirement to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days, which is a breach of section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner notes that, following his receipt of the complaint, Nottingham City Council subsequently provided the complainant with a response to his request. Consequently, he does not require the public authority to take any further steps to comply with the requirements of FOIA in this decision notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50398321

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.530881

Surrey County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Aug 2008

The complainant requested Surrey County Council (‘the council’) to disclose all application documents it held relating to the widening of a vehicle crossover carried out on her neighbour’s property. In addition, the complainant requested any recorded information held which details the reasons why her neighbour contested the Council’s decision to refuse the first application that was submitted. Concerning the first element of this request, the Council confirmed that it does not hold any further recorded information to that already provided. Regarding the second part of the request, the Council advised the complainant that no recorded information is held of this description. As the complainant remained dissatisfied and believed further recorded information must be held, she approached the Commissioner. After considering the case, including both the submissions made by the complainant and the Council, the Commissioner concluded that no further information is held by the Council. He noted that the Council had already supplied copies of all information it does hold and therefore concluded that the Council had complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR in this case.
EIR 14: Upheld EIR 5: Not upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FER160254

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.532706

South Cambridgeshire District Council (Local Government): ICO 18 Aug 2021

The complainant has requested information about enforcement action in relation to a breach of planning control. The Council supplied some information but withheld the remainder, citing the exemption in section 30(1)(b) of the FOIA – (investigations and proceedings). The Commissioner’s decision is that South Cambridgeshire District Council has correctly engaged section 30(1)(b) of the FOIA and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does not therefore require the council to take any steps.
FOI 30: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-90287

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.669464

Cambridgeshire County Council (Local Government): ICO 29 Sep 2021

The complainant requested information from Cambridgeshire County Council (‘the Council’) about parking restrictions. The Council handled the request under the EIR and provided some information. It advised the complainant that some of the information he had requested was not held, and the remainder was exempt from disclosure under regulation 13(1) of the EIR: personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information fell within the definition of environmental information at regulation 2(1)(c) of the EIR. She has further determined that some of the requested information is not held by the Council, and that the remainder comprises the personal data of third parties. Since there is no lawful basis to disclose the personal data, the Council correctly stated that it was exempt under regulation 13(1). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
EIR 13(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-79650

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.669500

Gordon and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 3 Nov 2016

On 8 March 2016, Police Scotland were asked for information about the production and issuing of a specified letter. Initially, Police Scotland refused to confirm or deny whether they held the information, or whether it existed. Later, they confirmed they held it but withheld it as personal data, and under other exemptions.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, Police Scotland carried out additional searches and located further information covered by the request. As this information was not located during Police Scotland’s handling of the request and review request, the Commissioner found that Police Scotland failed to comply with FOISA.
The Commissioner accepted that Police Scotland were entitled to withhold all of the information as personal data; this included reaching a view about whether the data subject had already put personal data into the public domain.

Citations:

[2016] ScotIC 234 – 2016

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573445

Wrexham County Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 5 Dec 2016

ICO The complainant requested various items of information in respect of a grievance investigation. Wrexham County Borough Council refused this request on the basis of section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wrexham County Borough Council should have relied on section 40(5) in respect of this request to neither confirm nor deny whether it held any relevant information. Additionally, in failing to provide a response within the required timescales, the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50628044

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573094