Category: Information

National Audit Office (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Oct 2008

The complainant submitted a series of requests to the National Audit Office (NAO) which were mainly focused on the origins of various figures contained in a value for money report into stroke care produced by the NAO. The complainant alleged that the NAO failed to respond to a number of these requests within 20 working days and that not all of the information falling within the scope of his requests was disclosed. The Commissioner has concluded that the NAO did not in fact hold any further information covered by the scope of most, but not all, of the requests. With regard the information that the Commissioner has established the NAO does hold but did not initially disclose to the complainant, the Commissioner has concluded that the NAO breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act by failing to disclose this information within 20 working days of receiving the requests. With regard to the requests where the Commissioner has concluded that the NAO does not hold any information, the NAO breached section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Act by failing to confirm or deny within 20 working days whether it held the information requested. During the course of this investigation the NAO argued that the further information which had been identified (a set of internal memos) was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 33. The Commissioner does not accept that section 33 is engaged in respect of the internal memos; however, during the closing stages of the Commissioner’s investigation the NAO provided this information to the complainant. In failing to provide the complainant with this information within 20 workings, the NAO committed a further breach of sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act. The public authority also failed to comply with section 17(1) by failing to provide a refusal notice citing section 33. Information Tribunal appeal number (EA/2008/0089) has been dismissed.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50180545
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.532746

Basildon District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Feb 2011

The complainant requested information from Basildon District Council relating to the removal of specific traveller sites. The Council initially withheld the information using section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. At the internal review stage, it sought to withhold the information using the additional exemptions under section 31, 38 and 41. The Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’) investigated and decided that the request should have been handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. As a result, the Council sought to withhold the information using the exceptions under regulations 12(4)(d), 12(5)(a), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f). The Commissioner decided that the Council had correctly withheld some information using regulation 12(5)(a). He considered the Council’s use of the other exceptions in relation to all the information that was not excepted under regulation 12(5)(a), however, he found that none of the other exceptions were engaged. He found breaches of regulation 5(1), 5(2), 14(2) and 14(3) of the EIR. He requires the disclosure of all the withheld information other than that found to be excepted under regulation 12(5)(a) within 35 days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.d – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.a – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FER0321779
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.530182

Channel 4 (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Dec 2009

The complainant requested information from Channel 4 regarding the British Academy of Film and Television Awards (BAFTA) and the system known as fast tracking. Channel 4 disclosed some of the requested information but withheld part of it, citing section 41 (information provided in confidence), section 43 (commercial interests) and section 40 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act. However, Channel 4 subsequently relied on the derogation from the Act. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is held by Channel 4 to a significant extent for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. Therefore Channel 4 was not required to comply with Parts I to V of the Act in relation to the withheld information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50272687
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.532388

Network Rail (Other): ICO 14 May 2021

The complainant requested from Network Rail information in relation to its Subject Access Requests policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that Network Rail failed to provide the information it held within the scope of the request within 20 working days and in so doing it breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA. As the information sought by the complainant has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require Network Rail to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-100994
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.663018

East Sussex County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Sep 2011

The complainant submitted a request to East Sussex County Council (‘the Council’) for a copy of a Grant of Approval notice for a development on his land, and information about the status of that development in 1974. The Council responded and stated that it did not hold this information. The Commissioner has investigated and is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information within the scope of the complainant’s request. He does however find a procedural breach of regulation 14(3)(a) due to the Council’s failure to cite regulation 12(4)(a) when stating that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0217 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FER0374328
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.530839

Nursing and Midwifery Council (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Nov 2008

The complainant requested information which, if held, would have included statements that had been provided by named nurses to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (the ‘NMC’) during its investigation of fitness to practise complaints. The public authority responded in accordance with the provision of section 1(1)(a) (it confirmed or denied it held the information requested). After considering the case, the Commissioner’s decision is 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) because, in responding to the request, it had to disclose information which constitutes personal data of the named nurses. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps in relation to the complainant’s request.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50169734
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.532761

Bayer Cropscience and Stichting De Bijenstichting: ECJ 23 Nov 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Preliminary reference – Environment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/4 / EC – Article 4, Paragraph 2 – Public access to information – Meaning of’ information on emissions into the environment ‘- Directive 91 / 414 / EEC – Directive 98/8 / EC – Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 – Placing on the market of plant protection and biocidal products – Privacy – Protection of industrial and commercial interests ‘

ECLI:EU:C:2016:890, [2016] EUECJ C-442/14
Bailii
European

Information

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571866

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Feb 2011

The complainant requested the total amount paid to Melanie Phillips and Joshua Rozenberg in 2009 and 2010 by the BBC and/or independent production companies working for the BBC. The BBC stated that the requested information fell outside the scope of the Act because it is information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is genuinely held for the purposes of journalism. 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

[2011] UKICO FS50359727
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.530186

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Feb 2011

In response to a BBC news article, the complainant made a request to the BBC for a copy of communications sent to and from Carter-Ruck LLP with regards to the making of a Panorama programme about Scientology. The complainant also requested that the BBC release any other communications sent to or from Carter-Ruck LLP or any other Scientology representative that concerned John Sweeney, Panorama, or Scientology. The BBC responded by stating that the requested information fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because it is information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and is therefore derogated. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is genuinely held for the purposes of journalism. Therefore the Commissioner finds that the BBC was not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50353677
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.530183

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Oct 2011

The complainant has requested information about how empty audience spaces are filled in shows such as Question Time. In particular he wanted to know if spaces were filled by volunteers. 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 remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50394881
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.530928

Department for Transport (Central Government ): ICO 5 May 2015

The complainant has requested the completed Part D (Health and Safety Management and Culture) of the Pre-Qualification Questionnaires received from all bidders for the 2016 Northern Franchise including how each section scored. The DfT refused to disclose the requested information under section 41(1), 43(2) and 44(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has correctly applied section 43(2) FOIA to all of the withheld information in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0129 withdrawn.
FOI 43: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50565977
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.555392

Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 9 Apr 2008

The claimant sought to continue an interim injunction requiring the defendant not to publish a film on its website.
Held: A claimant’s Article 8 rights may be engaged even where the information in question has been previously publicised.

Eady J
[2008] EWHC 687 (QB)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd Admn 1-Jul-2008
The claimant the son of a former fascist leader, sought damages for breach of confidence and a right to a private life after the defendant newspaper published stories alleging that his involvement with prostitutes had included nazi rituals. The . .
See Also – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
See Also – Mosley v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Oct-2009
. .
See Also – Mosley v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-May-2011
The claimant complained of the reporting of a sexual encounter which he said was private.
Held: The reporting of ‘tawdry allegations about an individual’s private life’ does not attract the robust protection under Article 10 afforded to more . .
Cited – PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd SC 19-May-2016
The appellants had applied for restrictions on the publication of stories about their extra marital affairs. The Court of Appeal had removed the restrictions on the basis that the story had been widely spread outside the jurisdiction both on the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Human Rights, Information

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.266533

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

The complainant requested information from East Cambridgeshire District Council (ECDC) about enforcement action in relation to a breach of planning control. The request related to an active prosecution case which was being pursued by South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC), partially on behalf of ECDC. The complainant submitted a request to SCDC for the same information, which was refused, and the Commissioner upheld the refusal in that case. In this case, ECDC applied section 42 to withhold the information (legal professional privilege). Given the overall context of the requests and the overlap in withheld information with the SCDC case, the Commissioner has used her own discretion and decided that the exemptions in section 31(1)(b) and 31(1)(c) are applicable to the information held by ECDC. She has also decided that the public interest rests in the exemptions being maintained. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 31(1)(c): Complaint not upheld FOI 31(1)(b): Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-47572
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.669401

Hm Treasury (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Dec 2009

The complainant requested copies of all submissions to ministers in relation to the taxation of non-domiciled residents for the period 1 January 2003 to 27 June 2007. The public authority disclosed some information, but withheld the remainder under the exemptions provided by sections 29(1)(a) (prejudice to the economy), 29(1)(b) (prejudice to the financial interests of any UK administration), 35(1)(a) (information relating to the formulation or development of government policy) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). In relation to the majority of the information requested, the Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours the maintenance of this exemption. In relation to the majority of the content of one part of this information, the Commissioner finds that none of the exemptions cited are engaged and that the public authority breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) in refusing to disclose this information. The public authority is now required to disclose this information to the complainant. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority breached section 17(1)(c) of the Act in failing to provide an adequate explanation as to why the exemptions cited were believed to be engaged.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 29 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50245725
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.532419

University of Bath (Education): ICO 14 Feb 2020

The complainant requested information from the University of Bath (the University) regarding communications between the University and Bath Rugby Club about Bath Rugby’s temporary stadium plans. The University refused the request under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps as a result of this decision.
FOI 43(2): Complaint not upheld

[2020] UKICO fs50840105
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.653517

Havant Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Feb 2013

The complainant has requested a summary of information contained in Havant Borough Council’s Building Act register. The council initially stated that the information was not held and subsequently refused the request because it considered it to be manifestly unreasonable. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council confirmed that it did hold the requested information and provided this to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in failing to provide the requested information within 20 working days, the council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FER0406336
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.527967

Babergh District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Feb 2011

The complainant made a number of requests to the council for information relating to an Airfield in Sussex. The council stated that it could not find some of the information requested, and withheld other information on the basis that Regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(f) (the interests of the person providing information) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that some information is exempt under Regulation 12(3) (personal data). He has decided that some information falls within the exception in Regulation 12(4)(e) however the majority of it does not. Where Regulation 12(4)(e) does apply his decision is that the public interest in maintaining the exception does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information. Further to this however he has decided that 2 documents should be exempt under Regulation 12(5)(b) as they are subject to legal professional privilege. Given his decision that Regulation 12(3) applies he has not considered the application of Regulation 12(5)(f) further. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0067 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50277289
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.530181

Derby City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Dec 2009

The complainant made a request for information for a large amount of pay and grading information. The public authority informed the complainant that it held the information but was applying section 12(1) because the costs limit applied. The complainant requested an internal review and was informed that the Council maintained its position and also felt that sections 22(1) and 36 applied to the relevant information in any event. The Commissioner has considered the public authority’s application of section 12(1) and is satisfied that it could be applied correctly by the Council to the whole request. He has also found that the public authority has complied with its obligations under section 16(1) in providing all the advice and assistance that could be reasonably expected of it when processing the request. The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50254756
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.532415

Hussain, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: CA 15 Nov 2016

The claimant appealed against case management decision made in his claim relating to his treatment in prison. In pursuing his case for reclassification, he had requested his personal data from the prison but was dissatisfied with the responses.

Gross, Sales, Simon LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1111, [2016] WLR(D) 605,
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Prisons, Litigation Practice, Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571422

Silver City Tech Limited: ICO 4 Oct 2016

ICO Enforcement notices
Two companies responsible for millions of spam texts offering easy access to loans have been fined by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Separate ICO investigations into Dorset-based Silver City Tech Ltd and Oracle Insurance Brokers Ltd, in London, found the firms had broken the law because they did not have the consent of the people the text messages were sent to.

[2016] UKICO 2016-55
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571106

Tandon (Prosecutions, Finance Insurance and Credit): ICO 2 Nov 2016

ICO Mr Tandon has been prosecuted at Manchester Magistrates’ Court for offences of unlawfully obtaining and selling personal data. The defendant, who worked at Lex Autolease Limited emailed personal data of 551 Lex Autolease customers, relating to road traffic accidents, from his former employer’s computer system to his personal email address, which he then sold on to a third party as personal injury leads. Mr Tandon pleaded guilty to two offences under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998, and was fined andpound;500, ordered to pay prosecution costs andpound;364 and a andpound;25 victim surcharge.

[2016] UKICO 2016-48
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571111

Wrexham County Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 6 Sep 2016

The complainant requested copies of correspondence between Wrexham County Borough Council (‘the Council’) and Geldards LLP Solicitors with regard to the former Grove Park School site in Wrexham. The Council failed to respond within the statutory 20 working days prescribed by FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not respond to the request within the timescale for compliance. As a substantive response has been provided to the complainant, he does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50631669
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571103

Telford and Wrekin Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 12 Sep 2016

The complainant has made several requests for information about planning, drainage and development matters from Telford and Wrekin Council (the council). Having initially handled each request separately, the council ultimately reviewed all of the requests together and treated them as vexatious under FOIA section 14 or manifestly unreasonable in accordance with EIR regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 14 or regulation 12(4)(b) to all of the requests. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50622051
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571097

Staffordshire Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 13 Sep 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the outsourcing by Staffordshire Police of their staff pensions provision to a private sector contractor. Having answered previous connected requests, the police refused these requests relying on the section 14(1) FOIA exemption on the grounds that they were likely to cause a disproportionate and unjustified level of disruption, irritation and distress. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police acted correctly in relying on the section 14(1) FOIA exemption. However she also found that the police had delayed their initial response to the request for far too long. The Commissioner does not require Staffordshire Police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 14: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50632501
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571096

Kirklees Metropolitan Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 15 Sep 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information from Kirklees Metropolitan Council (‘the Council’) about communications between the Council and the Crown Prosecution Service (‘the CPS’) in relation to given building addresses. The Council applied the exemption provided by section 40(5) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The complainant subsequently contested the Council’s application of this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the exemption provided by section 40(5). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50623104
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571085

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50629861: ICO 15 Sep 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a judgment in a specific court case. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. She requires the MoJ to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50629861
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571088

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health (NHS)): ICO 15 Sep 2016

ICO The complainant has requested emails sent or received by particular named employees on particular subject matters. NHS England has failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner considers that NHS England breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50624751
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571089

Office of The Police and Crime Commissioner for Warwickshire (Police and Criminal Justice) FS50642252: ICO 8 Sep 2016

ICO The complainant requested information from the Police and Crime Commissioner for Warwickshire (‘OPCCW’) about a police investigation. OPCCW provided some of the information but withheld the remainder citing sections 31(1)(g), law enforcement, 40(2), personal information and 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has decided that OPCCW should have instead relied on the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision in section 40 of FOIA in response to this request. The reasons for this are set out in this notice. Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is that under FOIA, OPCCW was not obliged to confirm whether or not it held the requested information on the basis of section 40(5)(a). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 40: Partly upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50642252
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571093

Department for Communities (Central Government): ICO 7 Sep 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the Voluntary Exit Scheme in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The Department refused the request under section 22 since it said it intended to publish the requested information after the scheme closed. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Department disclosed the requested information to the complainant, but the complainant asked that the Commissioner issue a decision notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 22 of the FOIA is engaged, but the public interest in maintaining that exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. However, since the requested information has been disclosed the Commissioner does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
FOI 22: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50611013
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571063

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 8 Sep 2016

ICO The complainant made a request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding permanent secretaries. The Commissioner finds that in failing to provide a response within 20 working days of the request, the Cabinet Office has breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any further steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50635238
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571056

Camden Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 12 Sep 2016

ICO The complainant has asked the London Borough of Camden (the ‘Council’) for correspondence between specific dates and individuals regarding the site allocations development plan for a given address. The Council provided a response to this request under the EIR however the complainant was not satisfied with this response and requested an internal review. This has not been provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to comply with the requirements of regulation 11(3) and 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to conduct an internal review in respect of the request made on 13 June 2016 that complies with the requirements of regulation 11(3).
EIR 11(3): Upheld EIR 11(4): Upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0638825
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571057

Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Central Government): ICO 13 Sep 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information about the minutes from the White Rose stakeholder meeting of 18 September 2015. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) refused the request relying on regulation 12(4)(e) – disclosure of internal communications. Since requesting the information, Government matters which fell to be dealt with by DECC are now dealt with by the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) but for the purposes of this notice reference will be to DECC rather than BEIS. The Commissioner’s decision is that DECC has correctly relied on regulation 12(4)(e) to refuse the request and she does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
EIR 12(4)(e): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0623103
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571062

Office of Communications (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Dec 2009

The complainant made a series of requests to Ofcom regarding the number of complaints received from viewers/listeners that were deemed not to have broken any broadcasting code and which on review, were subsequently overturned. Ofcom refused the request on cost grounds under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner finds that section 12(1) has been applied correctly. He has also recorded a number of procedural breaches.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50203058
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.532444