Category: Information

Home Office (Central Government) FS50626814: ICO 16 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to individuals who had returned to the UK after fighting for terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of this request and cited the exemptions provided by sections 23(5) (information relating to, or supplied by, security bodies) and 24(2) (national security) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5) and 24(2) were cited correctly so the Home Office was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held.
FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 24: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50626814
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569110

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50621993: ICO 17 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to an allegation of assault. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held the requested information but refused to provide it, citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s application of section 40(2) and has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of that exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50621993
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569116

Home Office (Central Government) FS50631937: ICO 16 Aug 2016

The complainant requested information relating to people who were refused UK citizenship in 2013, 2014 and 2015. The Home Office failed to respond to the request and, in doing so, breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50631937
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569113

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50624948: ICO 25 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to an online claim system, including with respect to the number of online claims that have been struck out for specific reasons. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) cited section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit).The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied section 12(1). She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50624948
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569117

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 31 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to people transferred to the UK under the Dublin III regulations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office did not deal with the request for information in accordance with section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) in that it failed to provide a response to the request within that statutory time frame of 20 working days from receipt. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50631599
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569112

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 22 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant requested a copy of a memorandum of understanding between the Home Office and its Saudi Arabian counterpart. The Home Office refused to disclose this information and cited the exemption provided by section 27(1)(a) (prejudice to international relations) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 27(1)(a) correctly so it was not obliged to disclose this information. However, she also finds that the Home Office breached section 17(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 27: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50634391
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569114

Bath and North East Somerset Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Feb 2008

The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Bath and North East Somerset Council (‘the Council’). The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
FOI 43: Not upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50155375
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.532500

Wycombe District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Jan 2011

The complainant asked the Council to release copies of all communications it holds relating to the proposed Sport Stadium in High Wycombe and a copy of the feasibility study undertaken of the Wycombe Air Park site. The Council responded refusing to disclose the requested information under 12(4)(d), 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. As the complainant remained dissatisfied he approached the Commissioner. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council released some of the previously withheld information. The Council continued to withhold various documents or parts of documents under the exceptions previously cited. In addition, the Council claimed a late reliance on regulations 12(5)(c) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner has considered the remaining withheld information and he has concluded that regulations 12(4)(d), 12(5)(c), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) are not engaged. In respect of regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR, the Commissioner accepted that the exception applied to the documents referred to by the Council but then decided that the public interest in favour of disclosing the information outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner has therefore ordered the Council to release all remaining information to the complainant within 35 days of this Notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0065 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.d – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.c – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FER0301485
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.530179

Bristol City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Dec 2009

The complainant requested a copy of a viability report provided in support of a planning application made by a developer in relation to the Lakota Club and Coroners Court. The Council sought to rely on the exception available at regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR explaining that the report consisted of commercially sensitive information and that to disclose the information would be a breach of confidence. The Commissioner has investigated and has determined that the exception is not engaged. Therefore the Commissioner finds that the withheld information should be disclosed. The Commissioner also identified a series of procedural breaches in relation to the way the Council dealt with the request. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0012 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FER0209326
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.532377

Milton Keynes Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Oct 2012

The complainant requested information from Milton Keynes Council relating to the handling of a previous request for information. The complainant asked for all the emails that the council had determined were not relevant to the previous request following an email restoration from a backup system. The council supplied the information requested but the complainant disputed that he has been provided with all the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all the information held falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FER0445606
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.529936

Castle Point Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 19 Aug 2021

The complainant requested from Castle Point Borough Castle information relating to financial contributions that the Council has received under Section 106 Agreements over the past 10 years. The Council disclosed some of the requested information but refused to provide the remainder under section 12 (exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply section 12, and that it has complied with the requirement of section 16. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-46978
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.669382

Kent County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Dec 2009

The complainant requested information from the council in relation to the proposals for a lorry park to deal with the impact of Operation Stack. The council identified 15 documents falling within the scope of the request and disclosed these to the complainant. However it redacted information from two of the documents under regulation 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e). The Commissioner has investigated and found that regulation 12(5)(e) is not engaged and that although regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged, the public interest in maintaining the exception does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure of the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FER0219834
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.532425

Financial Ombudsman Service (Local Government (Other)): ICO 18 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FoS) for information on the costs of its software licences. The FoS refused the request under the section 43 exemption (commercial interests). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the FoS also applied section 12(1) on the grounds that the costs of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(1) was correctly applied and she requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50622711
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569103

General Medical Council (Local Government (Other)): ICO 25 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to guidance issued by the GMC to junior doctors. The GMC has failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner considers that the GMC breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The GMC must provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50633939
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569107

Dr Vasserman and The Neaman Practice (Health (Doctors)): ICO 16 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to his own medical history, together with the contact details of the bodies that supervise General Practitioners and any information held about operation ‘Foreigner’. The Practice dealt with the complainant’s right of access to information about his own medical treatment under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). It also provided the details of a number of bodies responsible for regulating different aspects a GP’s work. It confirmed that it did not hold any information relating to operation ‘Foreigner’. This information was requested in January 2016 but the practice only provided a substantive response in August. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Practice breached sections 10 and 17(1) of the FOIA which, collectively, require a public authority to confirm whether the requested information is held and, if so, to either provide that information or inform the applicant why the information is exempt from disclosure, within twenty working days. However as the public authority has now responded to the request for the purposes of this decision notice the Commissioner does not require it to take any further action in this matter. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50640019
Bailii
England and Wales

Information, Health Professions

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569102

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 30 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the Department for Work and Pension’s (DWP) press relations with the Disability News Service (DNS). The DWP refused to confirm or deny whether information was held, but confirmed that if it was held it would be refused under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) because it would be third party personal data. This in effect is a refusal under section 40(5)(b)(i). The DWP breached section 17(1) because of the failures in its refusal notice. However, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken in respect of the section 17(1) breach, as this notice effectively informs the complainant of the change in the DWP’s position. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP incorrectly applied section 40(5)(b)(i) in neither confirming nor denying whether the relevant information was held. The DWP provided additional submissions to withhold the held information under section 40(2), and the Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP has correctly applied this exemption for all parties.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50589886
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569101

General Medical Council (Local Government (Other)) FS50605711: ICO 23 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information about meetings between the General Medical Council (GMC) and the government regarding the Shape of Training (SHoT) report. The information was withheld under section 36(2)(b)(ii) – inhibition to the free and frank exchange of views section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs, section 41 – information provided in confidence and section 28 – prejudice to relations between administrations within the United Kingdom. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMC was entitled to withhold the majority of the information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) but there is a limited amount of information which is not exemption under either of the section 36 exemptions or those provided by sections 41 and 28. This information has been identified to the GMC in a confidential annex. The Commissioner also finds that the GMC failed to issue the complainant with a refusal notice within twenty working days of receiving the request. This is a breach of section 17(1). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information identified in the confidential annex.
FOI 28: Partly upheld FOI 36(2)(b)(ii): Partly upheld FOI 36(2)(c): Upheld FOI 41: Partly upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50605711
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569106

General Medical Council (Local Government (Other)) FS50605197: ICO 23 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information about meetings between the General Medical Council (GMC) and a number of named individuals including government ministers regarding the Shape of Training (SHoT) report. The information was withheld under section 36(2)(b)(ii) – inhibition to the free and frank exchange of views section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs, section 41 – information provided in confidence and section 28 – prejudice to relations between administrations within the United Kingdom. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC was entitled to withhold the majority of the information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) but there is a limited amount of information which is not exempt under either of the section 36 exemptions or those provided by sections 41 and 28. This information has been identified to the GMC in a confidential annex. The Commissioner also finds that the GMC failed to issue the complainant with a refusal notice within twenty working days of receiving the request. This is a breach of section 17(1). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation – disclose the information identified in the confidential annex.
FOI 28: Partly upheld FOI 36(2)(b)(ii): Partly upheld FOI 36(2)(c): Upheld FOI 41: Partly upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50605197
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569105

Attorney Generals Office (Central Government) FS50613152: ICO 30 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to the RAF drone strike in Syria which targeted and killed two British citizens fighting with the so called Islamic State. The public authority declined the request in reliance on the exemptions at sections 23(1) (Information supplied by, or relating to bodies dealing with security matters), 26(1) (Defence), 27(1) (International Relations), 35(1)(c) (Information relating to the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers or any request for the provision of such advice), 40(2) (Protection of personal data) and 42(1) (Legal Professional Privilege) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information held within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemptions at sections 23(1) and 35(1)(c).
FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 35: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50613152
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569087

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 31 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant has requested a number of files from the Cabinet Office which were subsequently transferred in part to The National Archives (‘TNA’). In a much delayed response, the Cabinet Office cited section 22 (intended for future publication), section 27 (international relations) section 23 (security bodies) and section 24 in the alternative (safeguarding national security), and section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data). It upheld this at internal review although dropped reliance on section 40.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was not entitled to rely on section 22 in respect of some of the information to which it was applied. It was entitled to rely on section 22 in respect of some of the requested information. Also the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on the other exemptions it cited at internal review as its basis for refusing to provide the other information within the scope of the request. However, it has also contravened the requirements of section 10 of the FOIA in failing to respond to the request in a timely manner.No steps can be required because the information to which section 22 had been incorrectly applied has already been transferred to TNA.
FOI 22: Partly upheld FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 24: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 27: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50587343
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569090

Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 25 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information about counter terrorist training and a meeting from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS provided some information but, in respect of one part of the request, advised that no information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no information is held. No steps are required.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50634224
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569096

Crown Prosecution Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 31 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the costs of various court cases. The Crown Prosecution Service explained that it did not hold some of the requested information and in relation to four court cases, was neither confirming nor denying whether it held the requested information by virtue of section 40(5) Personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service has applied section 40(5) of the FOIA appropriately. He also considers that, on the balance of probabilities, the Crown Prosecution Service does not hold any further information and therefore has not breached section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Crown Prosecution Service to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 40(5): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50595559
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569098

BBC (Other) FS50619819: ICO 25 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information on the detection capabilities of the BBC in relation to the TV licensing regime and online services. The BBC refused the request on the basis of section 31(1)(a), (b), (d), (g) and 2(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has correctly applied the provisions of section 31 and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50619819
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569088

Attorney Generals Office (Central Government): ICO 30 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) 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 AGO’s 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

[2016] UKICO FS50607231
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569086

BBC (Other) FS50622609: ICO 25 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the BBC’s submission (October 2015) to the Department for Culture Media and Sport’s Green Paper ‘BBC Charter Review Public Consultation 16 July – 8 October 2015’. The BBC explained that the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall within the scope of FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50622609
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569089

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50619165: ICO 30 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the RAF drone strike in Syria which killed two Britons fighting with so-called Islamic State. The Cabinet Office refused to provide this citing a number of exemptions as its basis for doing so: section 23 (security bodies); section 26 (defence); section 27 (international relations); section 35 (Law Officer advice); section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data); section 42 (legal advice). It upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 23(1) and section 35(1)(c) as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 35: Not uphe

[2016] UKICO FS50619165
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569092

BBC (Decision Notice) FS50070769: ICO 15 Feb 2006

The complainant requested a copy of the agenda and minutes of the special meeting of the BBC Board of Governors on 28 January 2004. The BBC refused to disclose the information requested, citing the exemption provided by section 36 (2) (b) (ii) (prejudice to effective conduct if public affairs). The Commissioner confirmed that the requirement under this section of the Act that the decision be made by the appropriate qualified person exercising a reasonable opinion had been properly carried out. The Commissioner also agreed that section 36 (2) (b) (ii) had been correctly applied to the information sought. While acknowledging the public interest argument in favour of disclosure the Commissioner decided that, given the particular circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50070769
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.533348

BBC (Decision Notice) FS50066295: ICO 15 Feb 2006

The complainant requested a copy of the minutes from the BBC’s Board of Governors meeting held on 28 and 29 January 2004. The BBC refused to disclose this information requested, citing the exemption provided by section 36 (2) (b) (ii) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner confirmed that the requirement under this section of the Act that the decision be made by the appropriate qualified person exercising a reasonable opinion was properly carried out. The Commissioner also agreed that section 36 (2) (b) (ii) had been correctly applied to the information sought. While acknowledging the public interest argument in favour of disclosure the Commissioner decided that, given the particular circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50066295
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.533347

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 11 Jan 2010

In March 2008 the complainant requested information from the British Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC) regarding the legal advice sought in relation to his own editorial complaint and copies of all records relating to the said advice. The request was refused by the BBC under section 40 ‘personal information’ and section 42 ‘legal professional privilege’. Subsequently the BBC came to rely on its derogation from the Freedom of Information Act and refused to provide the requested information claiming that it was outside the scope of the Act because it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information in question was held for the purpose of journalism, art and literature. Therefore the BBC was 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 FS50227047
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.531223

Bolton Council (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Jun 2011

The complainant requested a copy of senior council officers’ declaration of interests. He also requested a copy of members’ declaration of interests. The Council provided the declaration of interest for Members with some redactions however it refused to provide the Senior Officers’ declaration of interests stating that that was exempt under section 40(2) of the Act (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the Act; however other sections are not and should be therefore be disclosed. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0137 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50359348
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.530505

Quelch and City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 12 Dec 2012

Mr Quelch asked the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for its Property Conservation Statutory Repairs Protocol and operational guidelines concerning the execution of statutory repairs. The Council disclosed the Protocol Manual, but Mr Quelch did not accept that the Council had provided him with all of the information that fell within the scope of the request.
During the investigation the Council disclosed information from a number of procedural documents relating to statutory repairs. As a result, the Commissioner found that the Council had breached the EIRs in responding to Mr Quelch’s request. She advised the Council that it should ensure that all relevant information was identified before responding to requests in future.

[2012] ScotIC 203 – 2012)
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.470180

Wyre Borough Council (Decision Notice) FS50325638: ICO 25 May 2011

The complainant requested information about the expenses of two borough councillors. The public authority disclosed some information but this was considered by the complainant to be incomplete and he requested an internal review of the response. An internal review was not conducted, but the public authority subsequently wrote to the complainant, informing him that the request was now refused as vexatious, under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner finds that the public authority was incorrect to refuse the request as vexatious and upholds the complaint. He also finds that the public authority breached section 1(1)(a) and section 10(1) of the Act. He requires the public authority to provide a response to the complainant which complies with section 1 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50325638
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.530496

Wyre Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Dec 2012

The complainant has requested all information relevant to ‘auto-forwarding’ set ups at Wyre Borough Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wyre Borough Council, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50455280
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.530122

City of London Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 29 Mar 2019

The complainant requested information from the City of London Police relating to Action Fraud. The Commissioner’s decision is that the City of London Police has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the City of London Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

[2019] UKICO fs50817898
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.638001

Queen Mary University of London v Information Commissioner and Matthees: FTTGRC 12 Aug 2016

Depending upon the extent to which data had been successfully anonymised, anonymised clinical trial patient-level data was not exempt from disclosure under the 2000 Act.

[2016] UKFTT 2015 – 0269 (GRC)
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000 22A 40 41 43
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568586

National Gallery (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Dec 2009

The complainant requested information about who provided pounds 40,000 anonymously towards the public authority’s acquisition of Holbein’s painting Christina of Denmark, Duchess of Milan (item number NG2475) in 1909. The public authority provided some information about the circumstances of how the painting was acquired, but explained that it did not have relevant recorded information about the donor. It explained that the painting was given to it by the National Art Collections Fund (NACF, now known as The Art Fund) and that it may hold the information about the donor. It explained that it did previously have a note sealed in two envelopes attached to its dossier about the painting about who the owner was, but that it had returned this information to the Art Fund on 8 February 2008; and so did not hold this information anymore. The complainant argued that the information was held by the Art Fund on the public authority’s behalf and should therefore be provided. The Commissioner has considered the facts of this case and is satisfied that the public authority was correct that it did not hold any relevant recorded information at the date of the request. He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 3 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50264179
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.532440

North Wales Police (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Dec 2009

The complainant requested information in relation to the investigation of the offence of bigamy for the period 1 May 2005 to 1 January 2008. North Wales Police provided the number of complaints of bigamy that it had received but refused to provide any further details, citing section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and has upheld the public authority’s application of section 40(2).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50206018
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.532441

Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Dec 2009

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust for specific information relating to an incident involving a patient. The Trust confirmed or denied whether it held that information under section 1(1)(a) of the Act. After considering the case, the Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was excluded even 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 sensitive personal data of the patient. The Commissioner does believe, however, that the Trust failed to meet the requirements of section 17(1). The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any further steps in relation to the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50259158
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.532449

Cambridge University Hospitals Nhs Foundation Trust (Health): ICO 1 Aug 2019

The complainant has made a request for information relating to agency, temporary and/or locum doctors in A and E departments. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) has not provided a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to provide the complainant with a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

[2019] UKICO fs50853217
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.643305

Yaxley Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jan 2011

The complainant made a request for information to Yaxley Parish Council on 9 February 2010. The Council refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it considered it to be vexatious under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner investigated and found that requested information was environmental and should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), and as such the correct exception should have been 12(4)(b). The Commissioner finds that the Council did not provide sufficient evidence for 12(4)(b) to be engaged.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50299059
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.530180

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50631241: ICO 3 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant gave the name and address of an individual and requested information relating to whether that individual was a Magistrate. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of this request and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ cited section 40(5) correctly so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held this information.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50631241
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568534

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health (NHS)) FS50611914: ICO 4 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant has requested a breakdown of the current market rents (CMRs), in particular the andpound;/m2 or andpound;/sq.ft, for practices in Herts Valleys as well as the premises grade for each practice. NHS England provided the complainant with information relating to premise grading but refused to provide information regarding the cost of individual premises under section 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England correctly applied section 43(2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 43: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50611914
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568537

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50637389: ICO 11 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about convictions and offences from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). By the date of this notice, the MOJ has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to issue a response to the request set out in paragraph 5 under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50637389
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568535

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50626968: ICO 10 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant gave the name and address of an individual and requested information relating to whether that individual was a Magistrate. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of this request and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ cited section 40(5) correctly so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held this information.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50626968
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568532

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50627899: ICO 10 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), namely samples of a named judge’s handwriting. The MoJ confirmed it holds information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it relying on section 32(1)(c)(i) (court records) and section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s application of section 32(1)(c)(i). The Commissioner has concluded that the MoJ is entitled to rely on section 32(1)(c)(i) to withhold the information. She requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 32: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50627899
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568533

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50625067: ICO 9 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a clinical override guidance document. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder citing section 38(1)(b) (health and safety) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 38(1)(b) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
FOI 38: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50625067
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568531

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health (NHS)): ICO 11 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to notes made at a patient engagement meeting about Sudbury surgery. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) has correctly applied sections 1 and 22(1) of the FOIA in its response to the request. The Commissioner does not require NHS England to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 22: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50619667
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568538

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health (NHS)) FS50633751: ICO 4 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant has requested the attachments beginning with ‘7DS’ to emails provided in response to a separate FOIA request. 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 FS50633751
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568539

Durham County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 9 Aug 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Durham County 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.
EIR 5: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0616734
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568510