ICO The complainant requested information relating to asylum policy guidance on discretionary leave. The Home Office failed to respond to the request and, in so doing, 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 FS50627948
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568328

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the detention in Immigration Removal Centres of women who have disclosed that they are pregnant. The Home Office failed to respond substantively to this request and in so doing breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA and it is now required to respond to the request.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50624827
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568327

ICO The complainant requested information relating to work carried out by a named Home Office official. The Home Office refused this request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 14(1) correctly so it was not obliged to comply with this request.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50618360
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568326

ICO The complainant has requested minutes and the name of attendees at a particular meeting between the Jeremey Hunt and Alliance Boots. The DoH stated no minutes were held but considered the names of attendees should be withheld on the basis of section 35(1)(d) of the FOIA or section 40(2) for a limited number of the attendees. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the section 35(1)(d) exemption is engaged the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner does accept that section 40(2) has been correctly applied to withhold the names of four individuals that the DoH has specified. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the attendees at the meeting with the exception of the names of the four individuals the DoH has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold.
FOI 35(1)(d): Upheld FOI 40(2): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604562
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568302

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to any complaint made by the DoH to the BBC in relation to news coverage in any way since 1 April 2014. The DoH refused to disclose the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA was applied incorrectly to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under section 36(2)(b)(ii).
FOI 36: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50608417
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568307

ICO The complainant has requested minutes and the name of attendees at a particular meeting between Jeremy Hunt and the Academy of Medical Royal College (AoMRC). The DoH stated no minutes were held but considered the names of attendees should be withheld on the basis of section 35(1)(d) of the FOIA or section 40(2) for a limited number of the attendees. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the section 35(1)(d) exemption is engaged the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner does accept that section 40(2) has been correctly applied to withhold the names of one individual that the DoH has specified. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the attendees at the meeting with the exception of the name of the one individual the DoH has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold.
FOI 35(1)(d): Upheld FOI 40(2): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604583
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568306

ICO The complainant has requested minutes and the name of attendees at a particular meeting between Jeremy Hunt and Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC). The DoH stated no minutes were held but considered the names of attendees should be withheld on the basis of section 35(1)(d) of the FOIA or section 40(2) for a limited number of the attendees. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the section 35(1)(d) exemption is engaged the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner does accept that section 40(2) has been correctly applied to withhold the names of three individuals that the DoH has specified. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the attendees at the meeting with the exception of the names of the three individuals the DoH has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold.
FOI 35(1)(d): Upheld FOI 40(2): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604573
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568305

ICO The complainant has requested minutes and the name of attendees at a particular meeting between the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Health (DoH) and the General Medical Council (GMC). The DoH stated no minutes were held but considered the names of attendees should be withheld on the basis of section 35(1)(d) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the section 35(1)(d) exemption is engaged the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the attendees at the meeting.
FOI 35(1)(d): Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604568
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568304

ICO The complainant has requested minutes and the name of attendees at a particular meeting between Jeremy Hunt and a group of health organisations. The DoH stated no minutes were held but considered the names of attendees should be withheld on the basis of section 35(1)(d) of the FOIA or section 40(2) for a limited number of the attendees. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the section 35(1)(d) exemption is engaged the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner does accept that section 40(2) has been correctly applied to withhold the names of two individuals that the DoH has specified. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the attendees at the meeting with the exception of the names of the two individuals the DoH has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold.
FOI 40: Not upheld EIR 35(1)(d): Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604561
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568301

ICO The complainant has requested minutes and the name of attendees at a particular meeting between Jeremy Hunt and the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS). The DoH stated no minutes were held but considered the names of attendees should be withheld on the basis of section 35(1)(d) of the FOIA or section 40(2) for a limited number of the attendees. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the section 35(1)(d) exemption is engaged the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner does accept that section 40(2) has been correctly applied to withhold the names of two individuals that the DoH has specified. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the attendees at the meeting with the exception of the names of the two individuals the DoH has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold.
FOI 35(1)(d): Upheld FOI 40(2): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604567
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568303

ICO The complainant has requested minutes and the name of attendees at a particular meeting between the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Health (DoH) and the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS). The DoH stated no minutes were held but considered the names of attendees should be withheld on the basis of section 35(1)(d) of the FOIA or section 40(2) for a limited number of the attendees. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the section 35(1)(d) exemption is engaged the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner does accept that section 40(2) has been correctly applied to withhold the names of two individuals that the DoH has specified. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the attendees at the meeting with the exception of the names of the two individuals the DoH has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold.
FOI 35(1)(d): Upheld FOI 40(2): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604556
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568300

ICO The complainant has requested information related to the investigation which followed the leak of a Scotland Office memo prior to the general election of 2015. The Cabinet Office refused to provide it citing provisions of section 31 (law enforcement) as its basis for doing so and section 21 (information available to the requester). The complainant challenged its use of section 31 and the Cabinet Office upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on the provisions of section 31 it has cited as its basis for refusing to provide the information in question. No steps are required.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50594434
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568279

ICO The complainant has requested the dates of interviews and names of those interviewed in relation to an inquiry into the leaking of a memo from the Scottish Office to the Daily Telegraph. The Cabinet Office cited section 31 (Law enforcement exemption) as its basis for refusal and upheld this at internal review. It also cited section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data) and section 38 (prejudice to health and safety).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 31 and section 40 as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 31: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50596816
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568281

ICO The complainant requested information about the number of programmes on LGBT issues. The BBC explained 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 inside 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 FS50624709
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568276

ICO The complainant requested information relating to prison officer dismissals, broken down by reason for dismissal, within a specified timeframe. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 44(1) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exemption is engaged in this case. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to disclose the information withheld by virtue of those exemptions.
FOI 40: Upheld FOI 44: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50612966
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568261

ICO The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to unreconciled payments on account (POA) of legal work to law firms in legally aided cases. The MoJ ultimately refused to provide the requested information citing section 12 (cost of compliance) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 12 as its basis for refusing to respond to the request. It has also provided adequate advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 of the FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50616682
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568262

ICO The complainant requested information relating to briefings prepared for the Home Secretary in April and May 2015 relating to Greville Janner. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice and exchange of views)) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(i) in this case and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 36: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50597284
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568252

ICO The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (‘the Council’) relating to spend data. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 22 is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information requested on 16 December 2015.
FOI 22: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50617392
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568267

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a named individual, who died in 1985. The Home Office stated that it did not hold information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office stated correctly that it did not hold the requested information, but also that the Home Office handled the request poorly and in so doing breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50613117
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568253

ICO The complainant requested information concerning whether two Home Office employees had completed specified e-learning courses. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 40(5) correctly so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50615152
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568254

ICO (Local Government (City Council)) The complainant has requested information regarding equality impact assessments in respect of grants received by the museum service since 2011. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council has correctly applied the vexatious provision at section 14(1) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50614757
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568256

ICO The complainant has requested the university to disclose the training material used to train a particular therapist. Initially, the university refused to disclose this information citing section 43 of the FOIA. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation the university decided to disclose the requested information to the complainant and withdraw its previous reliance on section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner has reviewed how the requested was handled and he has recorded a breach of section 10 of the FOIA in this case. Overall, however, he requires no further action to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50615942
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568270

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a named individual who was part of an aircrew that deserted from the German air force and flew to an RAF base in May 1943. The Home Office stated that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office stated correctly and in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA that it did not hold the requested information and so he does not require it to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50615851
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568255

ICO (Local Government (City Council)) The complainant has requested information regarding equality impact assessments in respect of grants received by the museum service since 2011 and information regarding plans to spend Arts Council England funding received by the museum service under the Major Partners Programme. The Commissioner considers that these requests relate to the same matter as a previous decision notice and that the analysis and conclusions reached in that previous notice are applicable in this instance. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council has correctly applied the vexatious provision at section 14(1) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50614758
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568257

The complainant requested information relating to the average size of a prison cell, including those in HMP Leeds and HMP Wakefield. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold the requested information. He requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50618502
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568263

ICO Local Government (Borough Council) – The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (‘the Council’) broadly relating to affordable housing and new developments given planning consent by the Council. The Council has dealt with the requests under the FOIA and stated that parts of the requested information is not held, provided other parts, and explained section 21 applied to the remaining information. The complainant disputed the Council’s assertion that some of the requested information was not held and that some information was reasonably accessible on the Council’s website. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information being requested is environmental information and therefore the EIR and not FOIA is the applicable access legislation. He therefore requires the Council to issue a new response to the requests under the EIR.
EIR 2(1)(c): Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50599759
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568249

ICO Local Government (Borough Council) – The complainant has requested information relating to a statement given by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (the Council). This said that a series of renegotiations on property deals had secured more than andpound;50 million of extra funding for borough residents, part of which would be used to deliver 231 new affordable homes. The Council has dealt with the requests under FOIA and stated that parts of the requested information is not held, provided other parts, and withheld financial figures relating to two developments pursuant to the ‘commercial confidentiality’ (section 43(2)) exemption to disclosure in FOIA. The complainant has disputed both the Council’s use of section 43(2) of FOIA and its assertion that some of the requested information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information being requested is environmental information and therefore the EIR and not FOIA is the applicable access legislation. He therefore requires the Council to issue a new response to the requests under the EIR.
EIR 2(1)(c): Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50601532
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568250

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) justification for state aid clearance submitted to the European Commission (the Commission) in respect of the EU’s consideration of the pricing methodology for Waste Transfer Contracts (WTCs) to be concluded between the UK government and operators of new nuclear power plants. DECC responded refusing to disclose the requested information citing regulations 12(5)(a) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that DECC has acted appropriately by refusing to disclose the requested information under regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(5)(a): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0608720
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568242

ICO The complainant has requested information on who advised the Health Secretary about a report published in the British Medical Journal on the increased mortality associated with weekend hospital admissions. The Department of Health (DoH) withheld the information under sections 35(1)(a) – information relating to the formulation of government policy, and 35(1)(d) – information relating to the administration of a ministerial private office. The Commissioner’s decision is that although section 35(1)(a) is engaged, the public interest in maintaining it does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 35(1)(d) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority communicate the requested information to the complainant. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 35: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604954
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568243

SIC On 25 May 206, Mr Mackay asked Scottish Borders Council (the Council) for information relating to the Council’s actions under the Curators ad Litem and Reporting Officers (Panels) (Scotland) Regulations 2001.
The Council did not respond to the request. Following a review, the Council informed Mr Mackay that it considered his requests to be vexatious. Mr Mackay remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that, whether intentional or not, Mr Mackay’s request had the effect of harassing the Council, and it was entitled to refuse to comply with the request on the grounds that it was vexatious.

[2016] ScotIC 158 – 2016
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568220