Category: Information

Department for Communities and Local Government (Central Government ): ICO 19 May 2015

The complainant has requested a report made to Wirral Borough Council concerning an investigation of Enterprise Solutions (NW) LTD regarding abuses of the Intensive Start Up Scheme ISUS. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Communities and Local Government (‘the DCLG’) has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the twenty working days’ time period required by section 10 of the FOIA. The DCLG has therefore contravened section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to make its response to the complainant’s request. The DCLG’s response should comply with the provisions of section 1 of the FOIA and section 17 if that section is relevant.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50575424
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.555391

City of London Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 17 Mar 2020

The complainant has requested information about a scoring system applied by Action Fraud to alleged crimes, from City of London Police (‘COLP’). COLP advised that some of the information was not held, which was not challenged by the complainant. In respect of the information that was held, it advised that it was exempt from disclosure by virtue of the exemption at sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1) was properly cited and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
FOI 31(1): Complaint not upheld

[2020] UKICO fs50879757
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.651450

City of London Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 26 Nov 2019

The complainant requested information about the fraud scoring matrix used by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. 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 fs50878837
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.650280

Ireland v Parliament and Council: ECJ 10 Feb 2009

ECJ (Approximation of laws) Action for annulment – Directive 2006/24/EC – Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services – Choice of legal basis

V Skouris, P
[2009] 2 CMLR 37, [2009] ECR I-593, [2009] EUECJ C-301/06, [2009] All ER (EC) 1181
Bailii
Directive 2006/24/EC
European
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Davis MP and Others CA 20-Nov-2015
The Secretary of State appealed against a ruling that section 1 of the 2014 Act was inconsistent wih European law.
Held: The following questions were referred to the CJEU:
(1) Did the CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland intend to lay down . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563285

Blacker (The Lord Harley) v The Law Society: QBD 27 Apr 2016

The claimant solicitor sought the release to him of six closed complaints files. The court now heard preliminary applications.
Held: The claim was struck out.

Fraser J
[2016] EWHC 947 (QB)
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice, Information

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563184

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Feb 2008

The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the council. The council claimed that 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 is that the information should be disclosed with minor redactions.
FOI 43: Partly upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50155391
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.532563

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Sep 2012

The complainant submitted four requests to Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (the Council) concerning the subject of advertisements he wished to display in order to promote his business. The Council has refused to comply with the requests on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations because it considers them to be manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner has concluded that the requests are manifestly unreasonable and therefore the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) as a basis to refuse to answer them. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50441183
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.529860

Insolvency Service (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Nov 2009

The complainant made a request to the Insolvency Service, for information relating to disqualification of company directors during 2000-2005. The Insolvency Service refused the request on the grounds that compliance would exceed the cost limit as set out at section 12(1) of the Act. The complainant refined his request, but the Commissioner finds that the Insolvency Service correctly applied the cost limit, and to comply even with the refined request would exceed the cost limit. Therefore the Commissioner does not require the Insolvency Service to take any remedial steps. However the Commissioner finds that the Insolvency Service breached section 17(5) in failing to issue a refusal notice within the statutory time limit.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50180899
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.532338

Rickmansworth School (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Dec 2011

The complainant requested details of the tendering process used by Rickmansworth School (the School) when selecting cleaning contracts in 2010. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the School failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) promptly and within the statutory timelines for handling the request and in so doing breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. After the Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) intervened, the School provided the complainant with the requested information. As such, the Commissioner does not require the School to take any further steps to comply with the legislation in respect of this request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50369294
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.531205

Canal and River Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Oct 2012

The complainant requested information from the Canal and River Trust relating to the abstraction of water from the River Tawe to the Swansea Canal and the subsequent abstraction of water from the Swansea Canal to Vale Europe Limited. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Canal and River Trust is subject to the EIR and that the withheld information is environmental. He considers that the Canal and River Trust was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) to refuse to provide the complainant with the withheld information. He considers that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the Canal and River Trust to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FER0436344
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.529886

Queens University Belfast (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Sep 2012

The complainant requested information relating to the decision-making behind severance and early retirement offers made to staff in the University’s School of Nursing and Midwifery. The University disclosed some information to the complainant, however it refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c) and 40(2) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(ii) applies to the entirety of the withheld information and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption as set out in that section outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the withheld information. Therefore the Commissioner orders no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0209 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50424761
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.529858

Financial Services Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Oct 2012

The complainant has requested from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) information relating to the circumstances in which a company ceased to be regulated. The FSA confirmed it held information covered by the request but considered it exempt from disclosure under section 44 of FOIA by virtue of section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 348 of the FSMA does provide a statutory bar to disclosure and therefore section 44 of FOIA was correctly applied by the FSA. He does not therefore require the FSA to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50447572
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.529909

Financial Services Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Nov 2009

The complainant asked the public authority for information about two firms of stockbrokers. The public authority did not hold information about one; provided a small amount of information about the other; and applied the exemptions under sections 44, 43 and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the remaining information. After the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority indicated that it was prepared to release some further information; it added the exemptions under sections 21 and 31 to some of the information; and identified further information held which fell within the request, the processing of which was likely to bring the whole request over the appropriate costs limit and so render it non-disclosable under section 12. The Commissioner decided that the request could have been refined to bring it within the costs limit, had the public authority identified all of the relevant information at the outset. He also decided that some of the information was exempt under sections 21, 40 and 44 of the Act but, in breach of section 1(1), the public authority had failed to disclose other information to which the cited exemptions under sections 21, 31, 40, 43 and 44 did not apply. The Commissioner further decided that the public authority had failed to identify all relevant information falling within the request and therefore provide adequate written notification about whether it was held, in breach of section 1(1)(a); and that it had delayed in disclosing information in breach of sections 10(1) and 1(1)(b). The Commissioner required the public authority to disclose the information which it had improperly withheld. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2009/0115 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50129430
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.532320

NHS Business Services Authority (Health): ICO 19 Aug 2021

The complainant has requested copies of complaints made to the Pension Regulator and any responses received. NHS Business Services Authority provided some redacted information, but withheld the remainder. It relied on section 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests) and section 44(1) of the FOIA (statutory prohibition on disclosure) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSBSA has correctly relied upon section 44 of the FOIA to withhold information. However, it has not demonstrated that section 43(2) of the FOIA is engaged and is thus not entitled to rely on that exemption. NHSBSA also breached sections 10 and 17 of the FOIA respectively in responding to the request. The Commissioner requires NHSBSA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, copies of the two BoL reports it has shown to the Commissioner. NHSBSA may only redact the PSR numbers and the personal data that it has already highlighted.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 43: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-81557
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.669443

Cotswold District Council (Local Government): ICO 9 Jul 2019

The complainant has requested information relating to a proposed development. Cotswold District Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under section 42 of the FOIA and regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cotswold District Council failed to respond to the request in time and breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 14(2), and that it correctly withheld information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 14(2): Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

[2019] UKICO fer0811050
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.643179

Scotland Office (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Feb 2008

The Complainant requested access to a file held by the Scotland Office. The Scotland Office refused this request under sections 28 and 35 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and found that section 28 is not engaged as the Scotland Office failed to demonstrate that disclosure of the information would, or would be likely to prejudice relations between the devolved administrations. The Commissioner found that section 35 was engaged, as the information does relate to the formulation and development of government policy, but concluded that the public interest favoured disclosure of the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclosure the requested information within 35 calendar days of this notice.
FOI 17: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50121252
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.532555

Lancaster City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Nov 2009

The complainant requested information from Lancaster City Council regarding its decision to award an enhanced pension to a former town clerk. Although the Council provided some information, it refused to disclose the remaining information under sections 40(2) and 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner has investigated and considers that the requested information is exempt by virtue of section 40(2) of the Act. He has therefore not gone on to consider the Council’s application of section 41(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50150198
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.532342

Department of The Environment Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Jun 2011

The complainant requested information relating to a pollution incident. The Department of the Environment NI did not respond to the complainant’s request until almost 9 months after receiving the original request. The Department then released some information to the complainant. The complainant informed the Commissioner that he believed that the Department held further information falling within the scope of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold any further information within the scope of the complainant’s request which has not already been provided to the complainant. The Commissioner also finds that the Department failed to comply with regulation 5 (2) as it did not make the information it subsequently disclosed available within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner also finds that the Department has breached regulation 14 by not issuing a refusal notice in accordance with regulation 14 in respect of the information which it does not hold. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Note -‘ The complainant has requested that their details remain in the body of the published Decision Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FER0301357
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.530535

Stamford Town Council (Decision Notice) FS50380865: ICO 12 Oct 2011

The complainant requested various documents and information from Stamford Town Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not entitled to refuse to provide the requested information under sections 12, 14 or 42(1) of the Act. He consequently requires the council to either comply with section 1(1) of the Act, or issue a refusal notice compliant with section 17.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50380865
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.531020

Legal Services Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Jun 2011

The complainant requested that the public authority provide him with the information it held about the training of three of its employees. The public authority provided information it held; however the complainant, believing that it held more asked for a review. The outcome of the review was that the public authority revised its original position and relied instead on section 14(1), that the request was vexatious, as its basis for not complying with the information request. The Commissioner found that section 14(1) was engaged but that a procedural breached had occurred. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0163 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50294583
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.530574

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 3 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to whether the Council had an obligation to reimburse tenants of Salisbury Independent Living (SIL) money he believed they were owed. Ultimately the Council provided much of the information requested but continued to withhold other information under the exemptions provided by section 42 – legal professional privilege and section 30(2) – confidential sources. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council also applied sections 36 – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs, and 31 – law enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on the exemptions provided by section 42 and 36 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter. However the Commissioner does find that the Council failed to respond with the request within twenty working days of its receipt. This is a breach of section 10.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 36: Not upheld FOI 42: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50574905
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561809

University of Cambridge (Education (University)): ICO 9 Mar 2016

The complainant requested information concerning the University of Cambridge’s (‘the University’) alumni associations. The University did not respond to the request in reliance on section 17(6) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to rely on section 17(6) and was therefore not obliged to respond to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 17: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50601710
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561803

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50614968: ICO 8 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request for information to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) about Just Solutions International and related payments, bids and contract. 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. The MOJ 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 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50614968
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561783

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50613442: ICO 7 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request for information to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) for numbers of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (‘RIPA’) requests about prison staff. 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.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50613442
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561782