Category: Information

Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (Health (NHS)): ICO 3 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information from Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) about a consultation regarding the restructuring of its gynaecology service. The Trust released some information. The complainant considers that the Trust holds further information that it has not released. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust has complied with the requirements of section 1(1) of the FOIA (general right of access) and has released all the information that it holds that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has also decided that the Trust breached section 10(1) of the Act because it did not provide a response within 20 working days.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50577230
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560950

St Pinnock Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 17 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant requested information from St Pinnock Parish Council (the ‘parish council’) relating to minutes, agendas and end of year information. The parish council acknowledged the complainant’s request and provided some relevant information but has not issued a response which fulfils its obligations under the terms of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the parish council has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the parish council to issue a response to the complainant in compliance with FOIA with respect to the outstanding parts of the request.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50601999
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560941

Wychavon District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 3 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant requested the name of the company that fitted a noise limiting device within the grounds of Eckington Manor. Having initially withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40 (personal data), Wychavon District went on to release it to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wychavon District Council has released to the complainant all the information that it holds that falls within the scope of the complainant’s request and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Wychavon District Council to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50594026
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560951

Southwark Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 15 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant has requested two reports produced by the District Valuer Service (DVS) for the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) in relation to the proposed development of the Heygate Estate. The Council provided the complainant with the reports prepared by the DVS subject to redactions made under the ‘confidentiality of commercial or industrial information’ (regulation 12(5)(e)) exception in the EIR. The complainant has asked the Commissioner to consider whether the Council was entitled to withhold this information. The Commissioner has decided that the withheld information engages regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR and that in all the circumstances the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exception. He does not therefore require the Council to take any steps.
EIR 12(5)(e): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0594174
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560940

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50610648: ICO 8 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request for information to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) for details of Category A prisons which provide ‘Virtual Campus’ facilities. 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 section 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: Uphel

[2016] UKICO FS50610648
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560926

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50608827: ICO 11 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about individuals’ rights, injuries and damages, recovery of property and theft. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) did not respond within the statutory 20 working days prescribed by FOIA. The complainant requested that a decision notice be issued by the Commissioner recording the delay. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by issuing its response late, but as a substantive response has been provided to the complainant, he does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50608827
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560922

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50590082: ICO 17 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) which, if held, would relate to complaints made about a named individual. The MoJ refused to either confirm or deny holding information within the scope of the request citing sections 40 (personal information) and 32 (court records) of FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated MoJ’s application of section 40(5). His decision is that the MoJ was not obliged to confirm or deny if the requested information was held under section 40(5)(b)(i) of FOIA. He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50590082
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560919

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50610180: ICO 8 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request for information to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) for a report on air quality test results into the effects of second hand smoking in prisons. 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 section 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 public authority to issue a response to the request set out in paragraph 5.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50610180
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560925

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50600080: ICO 9 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the wills of three members of the Royal Family. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it holds the requested information but refused to provide it citing section 44 of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 44 was correctly applied. The Commissioner finds, however, that in failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory timescale MoJ breached section 10(1) of FOIA. He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 44: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50600080
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560920

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50608966: ICO 11 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about ‘his court case’. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to either confirm or deny holding information within the scope of the request citing sections 40(5) (personal information) and 32(3) (court records) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was correct to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50608966
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560923

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50615657: ICO 16 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request for information to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) for a list of MPs who are Freemasons and associated details. 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 issue a response to the request set out in paragraph 5.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50615657
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560927

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50609789: ICO 17 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about ‘his court case’. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to either confirm or deny holding information within the scope of the request citing sections 40(5) (personal information) and 32(3) (court records) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was correct to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50609789
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560924

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50606578: ICO 18 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) about the cost of FOIA tribunals, which are heard in the First Tier Tribunal which is part of the General Regulatory Chamber (‘GRC’). The MOJ said that the information is not held as the expenditure is not broken down by the types of tribunals heard by the GRC. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOJ does not hold the requested information. He does not require the MOJ to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50606578
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560921

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jun 2011

The complainant made a request to the BBC for tender and commissioning information relating to Democracy Live, which provides coverage of the United Kingdom’s political institutions and the European Parliament. The BBC responded by stating that the requested information fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because it is information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is genuinely held for the purposes of journalism. Therefore the Commissioner finds that the BBC was not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0139 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50350144
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.530501

BBC (Decision Notice) FS50355160: ICO 22 Jun 2011

The complainant requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) the amount spent by the BBC on a particular piece of journalistic research and the date that the research was commissioned. The BBC stated that the requested information fell outside the scope of the Act because it is information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. However, it agreed to volunteer the date to the complainant outside the Act. For the remainder, the Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is genuinely held for the purposes of journalism. Therefore the BBC is not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act in relation to it.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50355160
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.530502

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Sep 2006

On 23 February 2005 the complainant sought disclosure of correspondence passing between a senior BBC office-holder and a government adviser dating from 2 April 2004. The BBC withheld the information, placing reliance upon the exemption under section 40 of the Act, and subsequently upheld its decision on review. The Commissioner considered the correspondence passing between the parties and submissions from the BBC in which it was further argued that the information was not ‘held by the authority otherwise than on behalf of another person’ for the purposes of section 3 (2) of the Act. The Commissioner viewed the information, before deciding to uphold the decision of the BBC having regard to the provisions under sections 3(2) and 40 (3) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 3 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50082767
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.533542

BBC (Decision Notice) FS50326342: ICO 22 Jun 2011

The complainant requested a breakdown of the costs incurred to redevelop the BBC’s news website. The BBC stated that the requested information fell outside the scope of the Act because it is information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner has noted that the information requested is only partially held. However, the Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information, where held, is genuinely held for the purposes of journalism. Therefore the BBC is not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50326342
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.530499

Gwent Police (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Jun 2011

The complainant made a request for copies of incident logs and any other logs held by the public authority that related to a specific incident that occurred near his home in July and August 2009. The public authority originally used sections 31, 38 and 40 of the Act to the refuse the request but determined, at the internal review stage, that the request was vexatious and applied section 14(1). The Commissioner has considered the matter and determined that, although the way the public authority had handled previous requests had contributed to the complainant’s obvious mistrust of the information it disclosed to him, on balance the application of section 14(1) was appropriate. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50377660
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.530555

Stamford Town Council (Decision Notice) FS50380883: 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 FS50380883
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.531025

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Feb 2010

The complainant made an information request to the British Broadcasting Corporation for information about complaints from viewers, victims and insiders made to it in connection with a Panorama investigation. The BBC refused to provide the requested information claiming that it was outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act because it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information in question was held to a significant extent for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. Therefore the BBC was not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50259647
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.531255

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Feb 2010

The complainant submitted a request to the BBC for information concerning a meeting between the Director-General Mark Thompson and David Cameron, MP. The BBC refused to provide some of the information on the basis that it fell outside the scope of the Act because it was held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’. The BBC concluded that the remainder of the information was within the scope of the Act but it refused to disclose it on the basis that it was exempt under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that the BBC was correct to refuse access to some of the withheld information on the basis that it was outside the scope of the Act because it was held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’. He has also concluded that where the requested material fell within the scope of the Act, the BBC was correct to refuse to supply it on the basis that it was exempt under section 36(2)(b)(ii) and the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken in this matter.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50209659
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.531254

House of Commons (Central Government ): ICO 15 Feb 2016

The complainant requested a list of individuals who had been allocated parliamentary passes sponsored by political parties. The House of Commons refused the request under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) on the grounds that the relevant information was third party personal data and its disclosure would breach one of the data protection principles. The Commissioner’s decision is that the House of Commons rightly viewed the information as third party personal data. However, the Commissioner’s view is that there is a legitimate interest in disclosure which outweighs the rights of the individuals concerned. Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is that the information should be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the names of those individuals allocated passes by parliamentary parties.
FOI 40: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50585951
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000 40(2)
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560913

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Jan 2010

The complainant made a request to the BBC for a breakdown of its expenditure of 45.4m pounds on ‘marketing, press and publicity’ from its annual accounts for the 2006/07 financial year. The BBC stated that the request falls outside the scope of the Act because it relates to information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC correctly determined that the information is held to a significant extent for these purposes and is therefore covered by the ‘derogation’. Therefore, the BBC is not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2010/0037 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50206742
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.531222

Kirklees Metropolitan Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 15 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant has made a request to Kirklees Metropolitan Council (‘the council’) for the identities of individuals present at a ‘speed awareness course’. The council withheld the information under the exemption provided by section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50595397
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560916

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Nov 2011

The complainant requested information about the BBC decision making in deciding to share its F1 coverage with Sky. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded by the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC genuinely for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside the Act. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50410577
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.531046

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Feb 2011

The complainant made a request to the BBC for a copy of a Panorama programme from 1987 entitled ‘Scientology -The Road to Total Freedom?’ and, if held, a transcript of the programme. The BBC responded by stating that the requested information fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because it is information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information, to the extent that it exists, is genuinely held for the purposes of journalism. Therefore the Commissioner finds that the BBC was not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50358104
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.530185

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Feb 2012

The complainant has requested the disclosure of the names of the judges that awarded its Radio Two Folk music awards. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and therefore excluded from the FOIA. The case was referred to the Information Commissioner. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC genuinely for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside the FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50427957
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.529150

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Feb 2012

The complainant has requested information about the costs of a particular Panorama television programme. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC genuinely for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall under the FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50422017
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.529148

Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Jun 2011

The complainant requested information concerning the analysis of recent questionnaires relating to two named roads. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (LBBD) acknowledged the request on the same day. To date, the complainant has not received a substantive response from LBBD. The Commissioner has investigated and finds that LBBD breached section 10(1) of the Act in failing to provide a response within 20 working days. The Commissioner now requires LBBD to either provide the information to the complainant or issue a refusal notice under section 17(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50376976
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.530498

Home Office (Central Government) FS50574981: ICO 17 Feb 2016

The complainant requested information relating to Home Office handling of subject access requests. The Home Office disclosed some information, but applied a restrictive reading to one part of the request and cited the following exemptions when withholding information from a document within the scope of another part of the request: 31(1)(e) (prejudice to the immigration controls), 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (personal information). It also withheld some of the content of that document on the grounds that it was not within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office misread one part of the request and also failed to identify all the information it held that was within the scope of other parts of the request. In so doing it breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. It is now required to provide a fresh response to those parts of the request. In relation to the document from which some of the content was withheld, the Commissioner finds that its entire content is within the scope of the request and that the Home Office breached section 1(1)(a) when withholding information on the basis that it was not within scope. In relation to the exemptions cited, the Commissioner finds that section 31(1)(e) was not engaged, but that sections 36(2)(c) and 40(2) were engaged and properly relied on. The Home Office is now required to disclose the information in relation to which section 31(1)(e) has been found not engaged. In relation to the parts of this document which the Commissioner has now found were in scope, the Home Office is required to issue a fresh response. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide a fresh response to request (4); Provide a fresh response in respect of the document within the scope of requests (7) and (8) that the Commissioner has now found to be fully within scope; Provide a fresh response in relation to any further information it holds that is within the scope of requests (7) and (8), in line with the description given in paragraph 28 below. Disclose the information that was withheld under section 31(1)(e).
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 31: Upheld FOI 36: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50574981
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560908

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 18 Feb 2016

ICO The complainants requested information relating to an increase in the fee for a particular type of visa. The Home Office refused the request on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 12(1) correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with the request. He also finds, however, that the Home Office failed to comply with the requirement of section 16(1) of the FOIA in that it did not provide advice to the complainants on how their request could be refined to bring it within the cost limit. It is now required to write to the complainant providing this advice. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to write to the complainants with advice on how their request could be refined to bring it within the cost limit.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50602865
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560909