Category: Information

Derek Mcpherson and Scottish Water: SIC 2 Apr 2012

ICO Works at a specified location – Mr McPherson requested from Scottish Water information related to works undertaken at a specified location between particular dates. Scottish Water responded by providing information in response to certain of his requests and advising that it did not hold certain other information. Information was also withheld under section 35(1)(c) of FOISA, which relates to law enforcement. Following a review, as a result of which Scottish Water provided further information and advised that it no longer sought to withhold information, Mr McPherson remained dissatisfied (believing that Scottish Water held further information) and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that Scottish Water had failed to identify, locate and provide all relevant information it held in dealing with Mr McPherson’s requests. However, she accepted that Scottish Water had taken adequate steps to do this by the end of the investigation.
She also found that Scottish Water had failed to identify certain information as environmental information and deal with it accordingly under the EIRs, and that it had failed to respond to Mr McPherson’s requests within the required timescale.

Judges:

Works at a specified location

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 057 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457800

NHS Clinical Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health): ICO 1 Mar 2021

The complainant requested information from the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) about funding relating to the Pharmacy Integration Fund from 2019 to the present. NHS England had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires NHS England to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. NHS England 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-84872

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.659839

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 1 Nov 2019

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence seeking access to fax cover sheet sent to the Veterans Welfare Service regarding a claim for payment following the death in service of the complainant’s son. The MOD provided the complainant with a redacted version of the document in question but sought to withhold the redacted information on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50834927

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.650340

London Borough of Camden (Local Government): ICO 6 Nov 2019

The complainant has requested information relating to the Council’s policies and procedures for assessing rehousing applications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Camden (‘the Council’) is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50868003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.650329

The Applicant and University of Stirling: FTTGRC 20 Dec 2019

The University was asked about its partnership with the London Academy of Diplomacy and academic Professor Joseph Mifsud.
The University withheld some of the requested information and stated that it did not hold the remainder.
The Commissioner investigated and found that part of the information had been wrongly withheld.
He ordered the University to disclose that information to the Applicant.
The Commissioner also found that the University was correct to state that it did not hold some of the information.

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 182 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.648226

Scotland Office (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant requested information recording exchanges between the public authority and the Advocate General for Scotland concerning exemption for Orkney and Shetland constituency from Government plans to reduce the numbers of and equalise the size of Parliamentary constituencies. The public authority refused the request and cited the exemptions provided by the following sections of the Act: 35(1)(a) (information relating to formulation or development of government policy), 35(1)(b) (information relating to Ministerial communications) and 35(1)(c) (information relating to the provision of advice by the Law Officers). The Commissioner finds that sections 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) were cited correctly, but that section 35(1)(c) was not engaged. The public authority is required to disclose the information withheld under section 35(1)(c). The Commissioner also finds that the public authority breached the procedural requirements of the Act through its handling of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50369101

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.530786

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Apr 2011

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the Information Commissioner’s Office for information relating to employees’ associations with and declarations of interest in Common Purpose. The ICO initially decided that it could not confirm or deny whether the requested information was held because to do so would exceed the cost limit. At the internal review stage the ICO overturned the decision to apply the cost limit argument and instead confirmed it did not hold any information in relation to the request in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and has found that section 12 did apply. The Commissioner has found a breach of section 1(1)(a) of the Act. He has also found the ICO in breach of section 16(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50320587

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.530417

Department for Work and Pensions (Decision Notice) 2: ICO 23 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant requested information about an individual’s state of mind at a set time. The Department of Work and Pensions refused the request under section 14(2) (a repeat request) and maintained its position in its internal review. The Commissioner asked the DWP to justify its reliance on section 14(2). It was unable to do so. Instead, it argued that it did not hold relevant recorded information and could not therefore provide it. The Commissioner has determined that on the balance of probabilities the DWP did not hold any relevant recorded information for this request. However, he does find breaches of section 1(1)(a) and 10(1), because the DWP did not tell the complainant in 20 working days. He requires no remedial action to be undertaken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50365476

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.530724

Cwm Taf Health Board (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant requested copies of reports issued by the District Valuer in connection with the development of two medical centres. The Board refused the request by virtue of sections 41 and 43 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and determined that the information requested constitutes environmental information and the correct access regime is the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Board to reconsider the request under the EIR and either disclose the information requested or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with regulation 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50387879

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.530720

Dr v C Boss (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant made a request to Aldergate Medical Practice (the ‘Practice’) for the information it held about its treatment of his mother and his associated complaints. The Practice refused to provide some information and claimed it did not hold other information. The case was referred to the Commissioner. During the course of his investigation, the Practice explained that it was prepared to provide the complainant privately with a copy of most of the relevant recorded information held about his mother through the Commissioner in an effort to informally resolve this case. It also found some further information that it was prepared to disclose under the Act and did so. The complainant contends that further relevant recorded information was held and is missing. The Commissioner has determined that on the balance of probabilities no further relevant recorded information is held by the Practice. However, he has found breaches of section 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b). He has also found procedural breaches of section 10(1), 17(1), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), and 17(7)(b), but he requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50367701

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.530734

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Jan 2012

The complainant requested from the ICO the name and details of an individual that worked at a specified data controller that he wrote to in communicating the result of a Data Protection Act assessment. The ICO refused to provide the information because it considered that it was exempt by virtue of section 40(2). It upheld its verdict in its internal review and the complainant complained to the Commissioner to consider this matter in accordance with section 50 of FOIA. The Commissioner finds that the ICO correctly withheld the information by virtue of section 40(2). He requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50425458

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.529087

Dr A A Deshpande (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant made a request to Aldergate Medical Practice (the ‘Practice’) for the information it held about its treatment of his mother and his associated complaints. The Practice refused to provide some information and claimed it did not hold other information. The case was referred to the Commissioner. During the course of his investigation, the Practice explained that it was prepared to provide the complainant privately with a copy of most of the relevant recorded information held about his mother through the Commissioner in an effort to informally resolve this case. It also found some further information that it was prepared to disclose under the Act and did so. The complainant contends that further relevant recorded information was held and is missing. The Commissioner has determined that on the balance of probabilities no further relevant recorded information is held by the Practice. However, he has found breaches of section 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b). He has also found procedural breaches of section 10(1), 17(1), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), and 17(7)(b), but he requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50410238

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.530728

Dr E A Odber (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant made a request to Aldergate Medical Practice for the information it held about its treatment of his mother and his associated complaints. The Practice refused to provide some information and claimed it did not hold other information. The case was referred to the Commissioner. During the course of his investigation, the Practice explained that it was prepared to provide the complainant privately with a copy of most of the relevant recorded information held about his mother through the Commissioner in an effort to informally resolve this case. It also found some further information that it was prepared to disclose under the Act and did so. The complainant contends that further relevant recorded information was held and is missing. The Commissioner has determined that on the balance of probabilities no further relevant recorded information is held by the Practice. However, he has found breaches of section 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b). He has also found procedural breaches of section 10(1), 17(1), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), and 17(7)(b), but he requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50410232

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.530730

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested information from the ICO which relates to the workers and companies with connections to the North-east of Scotland who were involved in the blacklisting scheme ran by The Consulting Association. The request sought information about the individuals and companies involved and details of what information was recorded on the blacklist. The ICO provided some information it held in response to the request and refused to disclose other requested information relying upon section 44(1) (a) of the FOIA, by virtue of section 59(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly applied section 44(1) (a) FOIA in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50489250

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.528774

Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant submitted a series of requests to the public authority for information regarding the costs of a Community and Police Partnership. He was particularly interested in how a named individual’s role was funded. The public authority determined that the complainant’s most recent request was vexatious. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the public authority correctly applied the provisions of section 14(1) of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0208 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50367591

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.530783

School Food Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Jul 2011

The complainant requested information provided to the public authority from local authorities regarding the average cost of ingredients for primary school meals in 2008 – 2009. The public authority withheld this information under section 36(2)(c). During the course of the investigation the public authority informed the Commissioner that it was now prepared to disclose some of the previously withheld information. However, it did not confirm that this disclosure was made. The Commissioner decided that this information was not exempt from disclosure, and should therefore be disclosed. The public authority continued to rely upon section 36(2)(c) in relation to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner decided that the remaining withheld information was exempt from disclosure under section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner also decided that the public authority did not meet with the requirements of sections 10, 17(3) and 17(5).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50348636

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.530691

Welsh Government (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant requested copies of correspondence concerning Powys Fadog and negotiations relating to the River Lodge Hotel, Llangollen. The Welsh Government provided some information, but withheld other information under sections 31, 40, 42 and 43. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Welsh Government disclosed some information but maintained its reliance on sections 40, 42 and 43. The Welsh Government also introduced its reliance on section 36 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and found that some of the withheld information was correctly withheld under sections 36, 40 and 42. The Commissioner has also concluded that section 43 is not engaged in relation to some of the withheld information. The Commissioner has ordered disclosure of the parts of the requested information which he does not consider to be covered by any of the exemptions cited by the Welsh Government. The Commissioner has also identified a number of procedural shortcomings in the way the Welsh Government handled the complainant’s request but requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50350554

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Wales

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.530795

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Sep 2012

The complainant requested information from the ICO contained in a case file of an investigation into the unauthorised accessing of her medical records by an employee of a health body. The ICO disclosed some information but withheld information contained in a report provided to it by the health body which related to the employee and the action taken by the health body in relation to that employee. The information was withheld under sections 40(2) and 44. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly applied sections 40(2) and 44 to the withheld information. He therefore does not require the ICO to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50447361

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.529836

Dr A Meehan (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant made a request to Aldergate Medical Practice for the information it held about its treatment of his mother and his associated complaints. The Practice refused to provide some information and claimed it did not hold other information. The case was referred to the Commissioner. During the course of his investigation, the Practice explained that it was prepared to provide the complainant privately with a copy of most of the relevant recorded information held about his mother through the Commissioner in an effort to informally resolve this case. It also found some further information that it was prepared to disclose under the Act and did so. The complainant contends that further relevant recorded information was held and is missing. The Commissioner has determined that on the balance of probabilities no further relevant recorded information is held by the Practice. However, he has found breaches of section 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b). He has also found procedural breaches of section 10(1), 17(1), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), and 17(7)(b), but he requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50410243

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.530729

Ministry of Justice (Central Government): ICO 6 Nov 2019

The complainant requested information about Prince’s Consent in relation to a specific piece of legislation. The MoJ denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ did not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50857713

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.650344

The Applicant and Scottish Prison Service: SIC 9 Dec 2020

The Applicant asked the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) for information about: prisoners’ mental welfare; health and safety incidents; prisoner assaults and complaints of bullying at HMP Edinburgh from January to July 2020.
This decision finds that the SPS failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the SPS failed to comply with the Applicant’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

Citations:

[2020] ScotIC 162 – 2020

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.659438

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 8 Oct 2019

The complainant requested a copy of guidance referred to in a Practice Direction. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) ultimately withheld the requested information on the basis of the exemption at section 23(1) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) of the FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information falls within the scope of this exemption and therefore the MoJ can rely on section 23(1) to withhold it. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 23: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50841237

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.643496

Birmingham City Council (Local Government): ICO 23 Aug 2019

The complainant has made two requests to Birmingham City Council for information about a consultation undertaken by the King Edward VI Trust. The Council responded that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the information requested in request 1 and request 2 (part 1), but has failed to respond to request 2 (part 2). The Council has breached section 10(1) by failing to provide a valid response to request 1 and request (part 2) within the time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a response to request 2 (part 2) under the terms of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50842476

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.643297

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 18 Oct 2019

The complainant submitted requests to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of an absence management policy for a particular part of the organisation. Following receipt of his first request the MOD asked the complainant to clarify the nature of information being sought. The complainant provided this clarification but argued that such a clarification was not necessary. The Commissioner has concluded that the MOD was correct to seek clarification of the request and was not under not an obligation to respond to it. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the MOD breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide all of the information falling within the scope of the clarified request within 20 working days.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50825845

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.643495

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Jun 2012

The complainant has requested a copy of legal advice referred to by an employee of the public authority in a newspaper article. The public authority stated that this information was not held. The complainant referred to a piece of legal advice that had been discussed at the Leveson Inquiry and queried whether this fell within the scope of his request. The public authority stated that the Inquiry advice did not fall within the scope of the request. However, it did disclose an extract of this advice to the complainant. The complainant complained that by failing to refer to the Inquiry advice the public authority had failed in its duty to provide advice and assistance (section 16 FOIA). He also queried whether the Inquiry advice fell within the scope of his request, and (if so) argued that he should have been provided with a full copy of it (section 1 FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Inquiry advice did not fall under the scope of the complainant’s request. As such, he considers that the public authority was not required to inform the complainant of this advice under section 16. As he has decided that the Inquiry advice did not fall under the scope of the request, the Commissioner has not gone on to consider whether this advice should have been disclosed to the complainant in full. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50432125

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.529564

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Oct 2012

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the ICO for correspondence with the Department for Culture Media and Sport regarding the changes to the e-privacy directive. The ICO disclosed some information falling within the scope of the request but other information was withheld under the section 36(2)(b)(ii) (inhibit free and frank exchange of views) and section 42 (legal professional privilege) exemptions. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and has found that both exemptions are engaged and the public interest in maintaining each exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50441903

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.529927

NHS Commissioning Board (Health): ICO 28 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested staff organograms for all Commissioning Support Units (CSU’s) including current NHS pay bands. NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) initially refused the request on the basis of section 43 and 21 of the FOIA but during the Commissioner’s investigation reconsidered the request and sought to refuse to provide the information as to do so would exceed the appropriate cost limit under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has correctly refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA and has also complied with its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA by providing advice and assistance to the complainant.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50760954

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.638037

NHS Commissioning Board (Health): ICO 30 Jul 2018

The complainant has requested all information which makes up a successful bid for community dental services in Hertfordshire. NHS England refused to provide this information on the basis of section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has correctly applied the section 43(2) exemption and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 43: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50718936

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.628237

Westminster City Council (Local Government): ICO 4 Jul 2018

The complainant requested copies of Westminster City Council’s Client Affairs policies. The Commissioner’s decision is that Westminster City Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a response which complies with Section 1 of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50752695

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.621393

Westminster City Council (Local Government): ICO 17 Aug 2018

The complainant has requested information on the rental fee received for Leicester Square (the Square) during a specified time period. City of Westminster Council (the Council) handled the request under the Freedom of Information Act (the Act) and withheld the requested information under section 43 of the Act (prejudice to commercial interests). During the course of the investigation, the Council disclosed part of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental and the request should, therefore, have been handled under the EIR. The Commissioner considers that the Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged in with regard to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the remaining withheld information. 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.
EIR 11(4): Complaint upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0706268

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.628350

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency v Information Commissioner and Williams: UTAA 26 Nov 2020

Information Rights – Freedom of Information Act request for information relating to action taken by Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to prevent organisations selling driver details to debt collection agency – whether law enforcement exemption (FOIA s.31(1)(g) in conjunction with s.31(2)(a) or (b)) engaged – whether distinction between a public authority’s `functions’ and `powers’ – whether DVLA ascertaining non-compliance with the law or whether any person responsible for improper conduct – whether First-Tier Tribunal’s refusal to allow reliance on late claimed s.35 exemption unfair – whether FOIA s.40 (personal data) and s.41 (breach of confidence) properly applied by FTT.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 334 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.659517

The Applicant and Fife Council: SIC 3 Dec 2020

The Council was asked for details of complaints about Graham’s Dairy. The Council disclosed information in response, but withheld some information on the basis that it was either the personal information of the Applicant or of third parties.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that the Council had complied with the request in line with the EIRs

Citations:

[2020] ScotIC 155 – 2020

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.659430

The Applicant and Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service: SIC 10 Dec 2020

COPFS was asked for numbers of complaints and remedial action taken on complaints of Anti-Catholicism against COPFS between 2014 and 2016.
COPFS told the Applicant this was not a category of complaint it recorded, and to respond to the request would exceed the pounds 600 cost limit. Following an investigation, the Commissioner agreed that it would exceed pounds 600 to comply with the request.

Citations:

[2020] ScotIC 163 – 2020

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.659428

Birmingham City Council (Local Government): ICO 9 Oct 2019

The complainant has requested information about a meeting held between Michael Gove and Sir Albert Bore in February 2014 regarding the ‘Trojan Horse’ letter. The Council withheld the information citing sections 30(2)(a) and (b) – information provided in confidence for the purpose of conducting investigations, and 40(2) – third party personal data, of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has incorrectly applied section 30(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information. She finds that section 40(2) can only be relied on for the personal data of administrative staff. She also finds that the Council breached sections 1 and 10 respectively of the FOIA by failing to identify all information falling within the scope of the request, and failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose all the information supplied by the Council titled ‘Appendix 2’ including that withheld under section 30(2) as detailed in paragraph 28 of this notice; Disclose the personal data within these documents, with the exception of staff listed in Confidential Annex A. 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 30(2): Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40(2): Complaint partly upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50805864

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.643438

Birmingham City Council (Local Government): ICO 11 Oct 2019

The complainant asked Birmingham City Council for information relating to a payment it made to the GMB Union. The Council provided the information held in respect of parts 1 and 4 of his request and provided a not held response in respect of part 3. The Council initially refused to provide information in respect of part 2 of the complainant’s request in reliance on section 40(2) of the FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the Council subsequently provided the information relevant to part 2 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA by providing the complainant with information it holds in respect of part 2 of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with the information he asked for in respect of all parts of his request and particularly in respect of part 2.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50834117

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.643439

Birmingham City Council (Local Government): ICO 9 Jul 2019

The complainant has requested information concerning a code of conduct investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has correctly applied section 30(2) – investigations and proceedings, section 41(1)(a) – information provided in confidence, and section 40(2) – personal data to some of the information. However none of the exemptions apply to some of the withheld information. The Commissioner has identified that some of the withheld information is not information provided in confidence section 41; or the balance of public interest for section 30(2) favours disclosure; or is not personal data – section 40(2). Additionally the Commissioner has found that, on the balance of probabilities, the council have provided all the information within the scope of question [ii] of the request. The Commissioner requires the Birmingham City Council to take the following steps: disclose paragraphs 55,56,92,93 and 94 of the Investigation Report; disclose Annex 2 with the names of all individuals redacted on the basis of section 40(2) 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 41: Complaint partly upheld FOI 30: Complaint partly upheld FOI 40(2): Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50773136

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.643167

Birmingham City Council (Local Government): ICO 25 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested various information about job evaluations (request 1), and then subsequently, the internal communications relating to the handling of request 1 (request 2). In respect of request 1, the Council refused to comply under section 12(1), and in respect of request 2, the Council disclosed some held information but withheld the remainder under section 42(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that, in respect of request 1, the Council has failed to demonstrate that section 12(1) is engaged, and has also breached section 17(1). In respect of request 2, the Council is entitled to withhold specific information under section 42(1), but has breached section 10(1) and section 17(1). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to request 1 that does not rely upon section 12(1).
FOI 42: Complaint not upheld FOI 17: Complaint not upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 12: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50768629

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.637992

Student Loans Company Ltd (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Dec 2009

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the Student Loans Company. The request was for a number of documents listed (a) to (l). The Company has now provided all of the documents to the complainant in electronic format apart from document (d). A number of redactions were made under section 40(2) of the Act to document (d) however most of the redactions were removed apart from live snapshots from its database. The complainant is satisfied that these particular redactions were correctly made and therefore this issue is not considered within this Notice. However the complainant remains dissatisfied that this document has not been provided to him in electronic format. The Company explained that it did not provide document (d) in electronic format as it stated that it was not reasonably practicable for it to do so. The Commissioner is satisfied that it would not be reasonably practicable for the Company to provide document (d) in electronic format and therefore it complied with section 11 of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0026 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 11 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50241605

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.532453

Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust (Undertakings) (6): ICO 28 Mar 2014

An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust. This follows an investigation by the ICO into a series of fax related incidents which revealed that the Trust had a very low attendance rate for Information Governance training.

Citations:

[2014] UKICO 2014-6

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.527531

Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust (Undertakings) (17): ICO 28 Mar 2014

An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust. This follows an investigation by the ICO into a series of fax related incidents which revealed that the Trust had a very low attendance rate for Information Governance training.

Citations:

[2014] UKICO 2014-17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.527532

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Mar 2011

The complainant requested that the Information Commissioner’s Office provide him with the contents of the Register of Data Controllers in any usable format. The ICO refused the request under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as the information was available in the online Data Protection Public Register, as maintained by ICO. The complainant has argued that the ICO has an obligation to provide the requested information in an electronic format which can be used for research. He quoted another case where the Commissioner ordered the disclosure of electronic data under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner does not consider that this other case is relevant to this one and is satisfied that section 21(1) was correctly applied.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50342323

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.530346

West Yorkshire Police (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Jun 2011

The complainant requested a copy of the document Managing Crime in Prisons from West Yorkshire Police. West Yorkshire Police disclosed some information, citing the exemption in section 31(1) (law enforcement) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner has investigated and found the information was correctly withheld. However he identified a series of procedural shortcoming on the part of the public authority relating to delay (section 10) and failure to explain the application of exemptions (section 17). He requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0170 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50359522

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.530634

Lloyd v Jagpal and Another: ChD 21 Jul 2009

The claimant said that the defendant had, when transferring matters to a new phone bought from his employer the second defendant, taken copies of images which had been sold on to newspapers. The second defendant now sought summary dismissal of the claim against it saying that it was not vicariously liable for his torts.
Held: Substantial sums had already been spent in this matter, and it would be wholly inappropriate to grant the application: ‘The statement of case discloses reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, it is not an abuse of process and the images were provided immediately upon request.’

Judges:

Kitchin J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1977 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.375131

John Connor Press Associates Ltd v The Information Commissioner: IT 24 Jan 2006

Citations:

[2006] UKIT EA – 2006 – 0005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 43(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lord, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 1-Sep-2003
The claimant was a category A prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. He sought the reasons for his categorisation as a Class A prisoner. Unhappy at the disclosure made, he sought information under the 1998 Act. It was argued . .

Cited by:

Cited – Department for Work and Pensions v The Information Commissioner and Another CA 27-Jul-2016
The applicant sought disclosure of certain organisations who had provided placements for those seeking work. They said that in the past disclosure had led to adverse publicity for those organisations, and refused disclosure under the department’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.240303

The Applicant and Scottish Borders Council: SIC 9 Dec 2020

The Council was asked about a complaint investigation. The Council disclosed some information, but withheld other information under a number of exemptions.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had partially breached FOISA in responding to the request. While, by the end of the investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had correctly withheld some information, he also found that the Council had failed to identify all relevant information until his investigation had started and had failed to provide adequate advice and assistance.

Citations:

[2020] ScotIC 160 – 2020

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.659436

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 13 Jul 2020

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about the number of times Ministers had consulted or approved intelligence sharing in particular circumstances. The MOD explained that it held some information falling within the scope of the request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(b) (defence) and 27(1)(a) (international relations). It also refused to confirm or deny whether it held any further information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 23(5) (security bodies) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to rely on section 27(1)(a) to withhold the information and that in all of the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She has also concluded that the MOD is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any further information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 23(5) of FOIA.
FOI 26: Complaint not upheld FOI 23: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO FS50893604

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.653773

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Apr 2010

The complainant made a request to the Information Commissioner for the information that had been withheld from him in respect of a complaint the Commissioner was investigating. The Commissioner handled the request under Freedom of Information Act 2000 however failed to recognise that the requested information constituted environmental information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Therefore the complainant should have been responded to under this legislation. The Commissioner withheld the requested information from the complainant and this Notice upholds that decision.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.d – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FER0269464

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.531403

Monmouthshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Oct 2012

The complainant requested information about the removal of conifer trees sited on a particular piece of land. Monmouthshire County Council stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0452954

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.529940

West Yorkshire Police (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Dec 2010

The complainant requested information about the Channel project, which is a counter-terrorism project that aims to intervene and assist individuals who are at risk of becoming involved in violent extremism. The public authority refused the request and cited a number of exemptions, including that provided by section 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner finds that this exemption was applied correctly and so the public authority is not required to disclose the requested information. However, the Commissioner also finds that the public authority did not comply with all of its procedural obligations under the Act in that it responded to the request late, did not specify which sub-section of exemption 31(1) it was relying upon, and provided an inadequate explanation of the exemptions and public interest assessment. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50314020

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.531913

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Jan 2013

The complainant requested copies of any documents that contained information related to the ICO’s ability to limit the use of a particular cookie on its website. He also requested that these documents be provided in their original form to ensure that he received all of the information stored. The ICO disclosed some information in response to the request. The complainant contended that, as he had not been provided with the documents in their original electronic form, the ICO had not disclosed all of the information that was held, specifically the full sequence of bytes contained in the original documents. The ICO argued that, as the complainant had not provided further information to allow it to identify which information he was requesting, section 1(3) applied and it was not obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly applied section 1(3) to the request. He therefore does not require the ICO to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50448720

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.527833

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Apr 2013

The complainant has requested information on the number of complaints being processed under the Data Protection Act 1984 (DPA84) which are still being investigated by the ICO. The ICO informed the complainant that it did not hold any recorded information to answer the request but that the answer to the question was that no individuals who made complaints under the DPA84 are still having their complaints investigated under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA98). The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50473803

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.528204