Category: Information

Northern Ireland Office (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Dec 2009

The complainant requested copies of correspondence exchanged between The Prince of Wales and government ministers at the public authority over an eight month period. The complainant also requested a list and schedule of this correspondence. The public authority initially relied on the interaction of sections 37(1)(a) and 37(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any correspondence falling within the scope of the requests. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority confirmed to the complainant that it did hold correspondence falling within the scope of his requests but it considered this information to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 37(1)(a), 40(2) and 41(1). The public authority also confirmed that it believed that a list and/or schedule of correspondence sent by The Prince of Wales would be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 37(1)(a), 40(2) and 41(1) of the Act and that a list and/or schedule of information sent to The Prince of Wales would be exempt on the basis of sections 37(1)(a) and 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that some of the correspondence is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 41(1) of the Act but the remainder of the correspondence does not meet the requirements of section 41(1)(a) and thus cannot be exempt under this exemption. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that some of the correspondence is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 37(1)(a). The Commissioner has also concluded that a list and/or schedule of correspondence sent by The Prince of Wales are exempt on the basis of section 41(1) and a list and/or schedule of information sent to The Prince of Wales are exempt on the basis of section 37(1)(a). He also finds that some of the contents of the correspondence fall within the definition of environmental information under the Environmental Regulations 2004, and accordingly exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exception at regulation 12(5)(f).This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 37 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50101577
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.532442

Phonepayplus (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Dec 2009

The complainant requested information from the organisation concerning environmental impact assessments and the recycling schemes that it was involved in. The organisation responded to the request providing some general information and stated that it did not believe it was subject to the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’). The complainant complained to the Commissioner stating that he believed that the organisation was incorrect in its determination of its status under the EIR and that it should provide the outstanding information. The Commissioner has considered the complaint and has determined that the organisation is a public authority for the purposes of the EIR by virtue of Regulation 2(2)(c). He therefore upholds the complaint. This Decision Notice requires PhonepayPlus to either provide the complainant with the requested information or to issue a 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

[2009] UKICO FER0265609
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.532447

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Dec 2009

The complainant requested all the recorded information the public authority had about its handling of a specified fire at a specific location. The public authority provided some information and relied on section 40(2) to withhold some other information including the audio tape of the call about it. The Commissioner was asked to consider seven aspects by the complainant and found as follows. For four aspects the public authority informed the complainant that it did not hold relevant recorded information and the Commissioner is satisfied that it did not do so at the time of the request. For three aspects the public authority has applied section 40(2). It released information for two of those aspects during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner has divided the outstanding redactions into three distinct items. He has found that section 40(2) has been applied correctly in this case to the outstanding information. The Commissioner has found procedural breaches of sections 10(1), 17(1) and 17(1)(c) in this case, but he does not require any remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50249263
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.532434

Worcestershire County Council (Local Government): ICO 16 Aug 2021

The complainant has requested information regarding cases of coronavirus (COVID-19) in care homes. Worcestershire County Council withheld some information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA; and denied holding some information. The Commissioner found that section 43(2) was not engaged. However she has exercised her discretion to consider whether section 38(1) (health and safety) is engaged. The Commissioner considers that the information is exempt from disclosure under section 38(1). Furthermore she finds that the council is not withholding any other information within the scope of the request 5. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld FOI 38: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-56100
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.669479

MA (ETS – TOEIC Testing) Nigeria: UTIAC 16 Sep 2016

UTIAC (i) The question of whether a person engaged in fraud in procuring a TOEIC English language proficiency qualification will invariably be intrinsically fact sensitive.
(ii) Per curiam: where the voice data generated by TOEIC testing are those of a person other than the person claiming to have undergone the tests, there is no breach of EU or UK data protection laws.

[2016] UKUT 450 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570465

Commission v Hungary – C-288/12: ECJ 8 Apr 2014

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 95/46/EC – Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data – Article 28(1) – National supervisory authorities – Independence – National legislation prematurely bringing to an end the term served by the supervisory authority – Creation of a new supervisory authority and appointment of another person as head of that authority

[2014] EUECJ C-288/12
Bailii
Directive 95/46/EC
European
Citing:
Opinion – Commission v Hungary C-288/12 ECJ 10-Dec-2013
(Bibliographic Notice) (Opinion) . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570359

Brighton and Hove City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 12 May 2015

The complainant has requested information from a building control file for a particular address. The council refused the information relying on section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50560361
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.555373

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jan 2010

The complainant made requests to the BBC for video clips and transcripts of comments made by an individual appearing on BBC news programmes. The BBC stated that the requested information falls outside the scope of the Act because it is information held for the purposes of art, journalism or literature. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC correctly determined that the information is held to a significant extent for the purposes of art, journalism or literature. 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

[2010] UKICO FS50265782
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.531225

Nottinghamshire Healthcare Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Feb 2012

ICO The complainant requested the disclosure of any information from Rampton Hospital part of Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (the’Trust’) – that related to his client’s deceased son. The Commissioner has found that the information cannot be disclosed as it would constitute an actionable breach in the duty of confidence owed to the deceased (section 41). The Commissioner has also found that the Trust had not complied with section 17 of the FOIA when refusing the original request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0053 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50416397
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.529223

East Lindsey District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Feb 2012

ICO The complainant has requested the names of the members of a Standards Committee Local Assessment Review Panel and the Chairman whose signature is on a specific decision notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Lindsey District Council has incorrectly applied the exemption where disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation and the exemption where disclosure would otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs as the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50426191
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.529186

Transport for London (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Jul 2007

ICO The complainant made a request for all information held by the public authority in relation to an investigation which was conducted into alleged irregularities with the public authority’s pension fund. The request was originally refused on the basis of section 21. However, at the internal review the public authority withdrew its reliance on this exemption and instead provided the complainant with a number of documents, although certain documents were redacted on the basis of section 40 and section 42. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority disclosed the information it had redacted on the basis of section 40. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority were correct to rely on section 42 to withhold some information, but breached section 1 of the Act by failing to disclose to the complainant information that it had previously withheld on the basis of section 21.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50154362
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.533015

E*Trade Securities Ltd (Undertakings): ICO 3 Feb 2012

ICO An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by E*Trade Securities Ltd. This follows a report to the Commissioner concerning missing client files. The files contained limited sensitive personal data including identification documents.

[2012] UKICO 2012-44
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.529185

Northumbria Police (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Feb 2012

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the attempted murder of Martin McGartland in 1999 and Northumbria Police’s investigation of that incident. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria Police was correct to deem the request vexatious within the meaning of section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner however finds that Northumbria Police breached section 10 of the Act by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the 20 day time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps in this matter.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50401605
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.529221

Northumberland Care Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Feb 2012

ICO The complainant requested a copy of survey notes relating to a specific building. The Valuation Office Agency (the VOA) stated that the information, if held, would be exempt under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA and explained that the duty to confirm or deny whether the information is held does not arise under section 44(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the VOA was correct to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information under section 44(2) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FER0408840
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.529220

Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Jun 2007

The complainant requested information relating to the surfaces of lanes throughout the local authority area and information relating to the operation of the Land Drainage Act. In terms of the former, the public authority responded by stating that some of the information requested is not held by the authority, and that to provide the information that is held would exceed the appropriate limit. Following his investigation, the Commissioner has decided that the information requested is not held by the public authority. In terms of the information relating to the operation of the Land Drainage Act, the only information held by the public authority is a copy of that Act, and the request was refused by virtue of the exemption at section 21 of the FOI Act, because copies of Acts of Parliament are accessible to the applicant either on the internet or via Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. The Commissioner has decided that this is a request for environmental information and the public authority should therefore have dealt with the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. As there is no equivalent of section 21 of the Act in the regulations, the Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the information it holds in relation to the second request. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, who have ruled that the appeal should be allowed and the decision overturned.
FOI 1: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50117954
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.532968

Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Constabulary (Local Government): ICO 29 Jan 2021

The complainant requested from Cambridgeshire Constabulary (the Constabulary) information in relation to a particular case. The Constabulary refused to confirm or deny holding the information requested relying on section 40(5A) of FOIA, stating that if the requested information was held, it would be the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was correct to rely on 40(5A) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Constabulary to take any step following this decision notice.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-50496
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.659700

Information Commissioners Office (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Mar 2014

The complainant requested the name of the company and the company director specified in paragraph 4 of the Data Protection Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) notice issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) against NHS Surrey on 18 June 2013. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.

[2014] UKICO FS50514078
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.527606

Bolton Council (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Dec 2009

The complainant requested the names of individuals from the Council who attended Common Purpose courses. The Council applied section 40(2) to those names and confirmed its view in an internal review. The Commissioner has determined that there are seven individuals whose names have been withheld. He finds that section 40(2) has been applied correctly for three of those names and incorrectly for four of them. He therefore requires the four names to be released and that the Council breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act. He has also found breaches of section 1(1)(a), 10(1) and 17(1) in failing to conduct sufficient searches originally, provide a refusal notice, or the non exempt information within the statutory timescales. The Commissioner requires that the four names are released in thirty five calendar days. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0007 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50259598
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.532375

Information Commissioners Office (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Mar 2014

The complainant has requested correspondence between the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and Richard Thomas, the previous Information Commissioner, since 1 January 2011. This was later refined to focus on correspondence relating to the investigations into phone hacking by private investigators and the Leveson Inquiry into press standards. The ICO refused the request by applying section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs to all the correspondence. It also withheld some information under section 40(2) on the basis that it constituted the personal data of a third party and its disclosure would breach the Data Protect Act 1998 (DPA). During the Commissioner’s investigation the ICO did disclose some information. The ICO accepted that some of that information should have been disclosed at the time of the request. In respect of the other information which it disclosed the ICO maintained that it was correct to withhold it at the time of the request under section 36, but that with the passage of time, the public interest now favoured disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO was entitled to withhold the majority of the information under section 36. Any information to which section 36 does not apply is covered by section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in respect of the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50493441
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.527605

Chiltern District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Dec 2009

The complainant requested the Council to release a copy of the pre-planning application file SN17253. The Council refused to disclose this information citing sections 40(2), 41(1) and 43(2) of the Act. As the complainant remained dissatisfied she approached the Commissioner. After considering the case and the withheld information, the Commissioner decided that the requested information is environmental information and therefore the complainant’s request should have been considered under the EIR. The Council reconsidered the request and decided that three documents could now be disclosed. It advised that the outstanding documents remained exempt from disclosure under regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(e), 12(5)(f) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner considered the application of these exceptions. He decided that some of the information is third party personal data and therefore remained exempt from disclosure under regulation 13 of the EIR. He considered the application of regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) to the remaining documents and concluded that these exceptions are not engaged. The Commissioner has therefore required the Council to release the remaining documents within 35 days of this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FER0221965
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.532392

Sussex Police v Secretary of State for Transport and Another: QBD 28 Sep 2016

The chief constable sought disclosure of documents held in respect of an investigation of an airplane crash at an air show.

Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd LCJ
[2016] EWHC 2280 (QB)
Bailii
Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed at Chicago on 7 December 1944, Civil Aviation Act 1982 60, Council Directive 94/56/EC
England and Wales

Police, Transport, Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569657

Secolux v Commission: ECFI 21 Sep 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to a tender procedure for a public service contract – Refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual – Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests – Exception relating to the protection of the decision – partial access – public interest – Obligation to state reasons

ECLI:EU:T:2016:521, [2016] EUECJ T-363/14
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
European

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569521

Philip Morris v Commission T-800/14: ECFI 15 Sep 2016

ECJ Judgment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of the directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products – Refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the protection of legal advice – Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process – Rights of the defence – Overriding public interest

ECLI:EU:T:2016:486, [2016] EUECJ T-800/14
Bailii
European

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569380

Philip Morris v Commission T-796/14: ECFI 15 Sep 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of the directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products – Refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice – Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process – Overriding public interest

ECLI:EU:T:2016:483, [2016] EUECJ T-796/14
Bailii
European

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569379

Philip Morris v Commission T-18/15: ECFI 15 Sep 2016

ECFI Judgment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of the directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products – Refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings – Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process – Rights of the defence – Overriding public interest

[2016] EUECJ T-18/15, ECLI:EU:T:2016:487
Bailii
European

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569378

Herbert Smith Freehills v Council (Judgment): ECFI 15 Sep 2016

ECJ Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to discussions preceding the adoption of the Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products – Refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the protection of legal advice – Rights of the defence – Overriding public interest

T-710/14, [2016] EUECJ T-710/14, ECLI:EU:T:2016:494
Bailii
European

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569362

Mackay and Scottish Borders Council (Archiving of Emails): SIC 16 Aug 2016

On 25 June 2015, Mr Mackay asked Scottish Borders Council (the Council) for information about archiving and retrieving emails of former Council employees. Following a review, the Council told Mr Mackay that no information was held. However, the Council’s response to a later request made Mr Mackay question whether, after all, he should have received information in response to his request of 25 June 2015. He applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and accepted that the Council did not hold any information covered by Mr Mackay’s request. However, she found that the Council had failed to provide Mr Mackay with reasonable advice and assistance, as required by section 15(1) of FOISA. She did not require the Council to take any action.

[2016] ScotIC 176 – 2016
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569162

The Applicant and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland (Incidents Involving Transgender Women): SIC 30 Aug 2016

On 19 February 2016, the applicant asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for statistical information about incidents concerning the mistreatment of transgender women by police officers.
Police Scotland failed to respond to this request. Following a review, the applicant remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that Police Scotland had partially failed to respond to the applicant’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.
The Commissioner found that Police Scotland correctly gave the applicant notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that some information was not held. However, Police Scotland was wrong to give notice that it did not hold other information covered by the request. In relation to this information, Police Scotland correctly relied on section 12(1) of FOISA (Excessive cost of compliance). The Commissioner did not require Police Scotland to take any action in relation to the applicant’s application.

[2016] ScotIC 188 – 2016
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569156