Category: Information

Cornwall Council (Local Government): ICO 24 May 2019

The complainant has requested information on the decision making process which the council took to allow caravans to remain parked on a field. The council disclosed some information but applied Regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) to withhold other information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
EIR 12(5)(b): Complaint not upheld

[2019] UKICO fer0803343
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.638668

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

Home Office (Central Government) FS50610110: ICO 17 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to assistance provided by local authorities to refugees. The Home Office failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA through its failure to respond to this request. It is now required to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50610110
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560911

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 16 Feb 2016

The complainant has requested information about the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (‘ANPR’) database. To date the Home Office has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to respond to this request the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office respond to the request.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50613115
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560912

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 2 Feb 2016

ICO The complainants requested internal communications relating to a judgment by the Court of Justice of the EU. 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, so it was not obliged to comply with this request, although it did breach section 16(1) of the FOIA by failing to provide advice to the complainants and section 17(5) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50606760
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560910

Ranger v The House of Lords Appointments Commission: QBD 20 Jan 2015

The claimant, a succesful businessman and benefitor of charity, had twice applied unsuccessfully to be appointed to the House of Lords. He now sought disclosure of two letters submitted by third parties apparently opposing his appointment. He was content that they be anonymised.
Held: The applications came under the exemption from disclosure in relation to ‘any honour or dignity’. This was exempted from disclosure under both the 1998 and the 2000 Acts (though limited in the second case). Moreover, in the particular respect under consideration the Directive has been implemented in a way that was compliant and proportionate.

Knowles J
[2015] EWHC 45 (QB)
Bailii
Data Protection Act 1998 7 37, Freedom of Information Act 2000 37, Data Protection Directive 95/46/EU
England and Wales

Information, Constitutional, European

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.541574

Patel v Unite The Union: QBD 27 Jan 2012

The claimant, wanting to bring defamation proceedings in respect of postings on the defendant’s internet forum, sought orders for disclosure of the identities of the posters. The defendants said that the forum having been taken down, they were now unable to provide any further information.
Held: The defendant had made promises to preserve the data, and its replies were very unsatisfactory. An order would be made for joint inspections with arrangements to protect the rights of third parties.

Richard Parkes QC
[2012] EWHC 92 (QB)
Bailii
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rugby Football Union v Viagogo Ltd CA 20-Dec-2011
The Union complained that the defendant operators of a web-site had permitted the sale of its tickets at far above their face value. The Court considerer whether it was proper to make a Norwich Pharmacal order which would entail the disclosure of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.450509

Independent Police Complaints Commission v Warner and Others: QBD 17 Feb 2012

The applicant had mistakenly disclosed confidential personal information in answer to a data request. It sought an injunction restricting its redistribution after the recipient refused to return it and threatened to pass it on. The defendant said later that he had posted the material back to the IPCC. He failed however to comply with an order requiring him to answer certain questions about others involved.
Held: The court confirmed the order and gave its reasons for making it. It was important to recognise that the claimant had duties to protect the Article 8 rights of third parties. The claimant said that ‘there is a good arguable case that there has been a breach of the duties of confidentiality owed both to itself and to the other person, that further breaches are threatened, and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The evidence amply establishes this to be so.’

Tugendhat J
[2012] EWHC 271 (QB)
Bailii
Data Protection Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd CA 21-Feb-2007
The defendant journalist had published confidential material obtained from the claimant’s secure hospital at Ashworth. The hospital now appealed against the refusal of an order for him to to disclose his source.
Held: The appeal failed. Given . .
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v AP (No. 2) SC 23-Jun-2010
The claimant had object to a Control order made against him and against a decision that he be deported. He had been protected by an anonymity order, but the Court now considered whether it should be continued.
Held: AP had already by the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.451440

Clift v Slough Borough Council and Another: QBD 6 Jul 2009

The claimant sought damages for defamation. The council had decided that she had threatened a member of staff and notified various people, and entered her name on a violent persons register. She alleged malice, the council pleaded justification and qualified privilege. She also complained of the breach of her data protection rights. She had been angry with a council official and admitted that she might have been violent to her if they had met.
Held: Several of the publications did attract qualified privilege, since the staff might possibly come in contact with the claimant, but not many others. The council owed no duty of care to some recipients, and the publication was disproportionate. The claim therefore succeeded in part.
The placing of the claimant on the register did engage her Article 8 rights. The claimant accepted that there was a legitimate aim, but that the path chosen was disproportionate. There was no risk to people working in departments which the claimant had no reason to be in contact with. A publication could be excessive either when published to someone to whom no duty was owed, or where the necessary relationship between the parties is absent or secondly where the publication incorporates irrelevant information that is not necessary for the performance of the particular duty or the protection of the particular interest upon which the privilege is founded.

Tugendhat J
[2009] EWHC 1550 (QB)
Bailii
Data Protection Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act 1998 6(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Wood v West Midlands Police QBD 8-Dec-2003
The claimant’s busness partner had been investigated by the police. He claimed in defamation after a senior officer circulated business associates and others informing them of the prosecution and suggesting the partners’s guilt. He said he was . .
Cited – Wood v Chief Constable West Midlands Police CA 8-Dec-2004
The claimant was a director of a limited company. A Detective Chief Inspector with responsibility for crime prevention was investigating a series of car thefts and arrested the claimant’s business partner and, before the accused had even stood his . .
Cited – W v Westminster City Council and Others QBD 9-Dec-2004
The claimant sought to bring an action for defamation based upon communications made in a child protection conference. The reference was in a Report for Conference to be held pursuant to the duties imposed on local authorities by the Children Act . .
Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB CA 18-Mar-1998
Public Identification of Pedophiles by Police
AB and CB had been released from prison after serving sentences for sexual assaults on children. They were thought still to be dangerous. They moved about the country to escape identification, and came to be staying on a campsite. The police sought . .
Cited – X and Y v The Netherlands ECHR 26-Mar-1985
A parent complained to the police about a sexual assault on his daughter a mentally defective girl of 16. The prosecutor’s office decided not to prosecute provided the accused did not repeat the offence. X appealed against the decision and requested . .
Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB CA 18-Mar-1998
Public Identification of Pedophiles by Police
AB and CB had been released from prison after serving sentences for sexual assaults on children. They were thought still to be dangerous. They moved about the country to escape identification, and came to be staying on a campsite. The police sought . .
Cited – Kearns and Others v The General Council of the Bar CA 17-Mar-2003
The claimants had sought to recover from the General Council of the Bar damages for libel in a communication from the head of the Bar Council’s Professional Standards and Legal Services Department to all heads of chambers, their senior clerks and . .
Cited – W v JH and Another QBD 5-Mar-2008
The claimant had been an employee of the defendant council. A complaint had been made about his conduct in 1993 and 1994. A disciplinary hearing had been held and the claimant was issued with a final warning to be placed on his file. The . .
Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
Cited – Downtex v Flatley CA 2-Oct-2003
The claimants sought damages for defamation and breach of contract. The claimants had purchased a business from the defendant, which contract included a clause requiring the defendant to say nothing damaging about the business. The defendant . .
Cited – Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order restraining publication by the respondent of an article about her. She said that it was based upon an email falsely attributed to her.
Held: ‘in an action for defamation a court will not impose . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – Toogood v Spyring 1834
Qualified Privilege of Bona Fide Words Under Duty
The defence of qualified privilege arises where the statement in question was bona fide and without malicious intent to injure: ‘In general, an action lies for the malicious publication of statements which are false in fact, and injurious to the . .
Cited – Coxhead v Richards 31-Jan-1846
A complaint was made as to a warning of suspected misconduct of ship’s captain communicated to a shipowner. It did not involve a risk to the life of those on board, but the court considered what the position might have been if it had. Cresswell J . .
Cited – Bowen v Hall 1881
The law of libel does not provide for declarations of falsity: ‘It is better for the general good that individuals should occasionally suffer than that freedom of communication between persons in certain relations should be in any way impeded. But . . .
Cited – Stuart v Bell CA 1891
Lindley LJ suggested that a moral or social duty meant ‘a duty recognised by English people of ordinary intelligence and moral principle, but at the same time not a duty enforceable by legal proceedings, whether civil or criminal’.
The . .
Cited – Adam v Ward HL 1917
The plaintiff, Major Adam MP, falsely attacked General Scobell in a speech in the House of Commons, thus bringing his charge into the national arena. The Army Council investigated the charge, rejected it and directed their secretary, Sir E Ward, the . .
Cited – Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc and Others HL 7-Jul-1994
The plaintiff, who worked in financial services, complained of the terms of the reference given by his former employer. Having spoken of his behaviour towards members of the team, it went on: ‘his former superior has further stated he is a man of . .
Distinguished – Horrocks v Lowe HL 1974
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council. The council meeting was an occasion attracting qualified privilege. The judge at trial found that the councillor honestly believed that what he had said in the . .
Cited – Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5) CA 5-Dec-2001
Two actions for defamation were brought by the claimant against the defendant. The publication reported in detail allegations made against the claimant of criminal activities including money-laundering on a vast scale. They admitted the defamatory . .

Cited by:
Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 13-Jul-2010
The claimant police officer complained of an article he said was defamatory in saying he was being investigated for allegations of accepting bribes. The article remained on the internet even after he was cleared. Each party appealed interim orders. . .
Cited – Clift v Slough Borough Council CA 21-Dec-2010
The court was asked how, if at all, the Human Rights Act 1998 has affected a local authority’s defence of qualified privilege in defamation cases. The claimant had been placed on the Council’s Violent Persons Register after becoming very upset and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Information, Local Government, Human Rights

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.347445

Kent Police (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Nov 2009

The complainant requested the details of two police officers in connection with an incident in May 2006 that led to his arrest and conviction and the details of cautions or convictions of a third party arrested and cautioned in the same incident. The public authority refused the requests under section 14(1) as they were considered vexatious. The Commissioner finds that the requests can be accurately characterised as vexatious owing to the burden of expense and distraction they would impose on the public authority, that they have the effect of harassing the public authority and individual members of its staff and that they are obsessive in nature. The public authority therefore applied section 14(1) correctly and is not obliged to comply with these requests. The Commissioner also finds, however, that the public authority failed to comply with section 17(5) in that it did not respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0004 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50233971
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.532339

Wrexham County Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Sep 2012

The complainant requested costing information associated with Wrexham County Borough Council’s bid for Wrexham to be awarded city status. The Council provided some information, and stated that other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council provided the complainant with all the information it held relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50455077
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.529873

Charity Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Nov 2009

The complainant made a request to the Charity Commission for details of correspondence it had entered into with the National Trust on a specific issue. The Charity Commission provided some information. However, it refused to provide any additional information on the basis that it was exempt under sections 40(2) and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. As a result of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Charity Commission agreed to provide some further information to the complainant. The Commissioner has found that the public authority correctly applied section 41. However, it incorrectly applied section 40(2). He has therefore ordered disclosure of one element of the requested information. In addition, he has noted some procedural breaches of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50234376
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.532302

HM Treasury (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Dec 2009

The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury for a copy of the ‘Sandstorm Report’ (the report) which was submitted to the Bank of England by Price Waterhouse in 1991. The report addressed allegations of fraudulent activities committed by the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. In responding to the request HM Treasury noted that a significant portion of the report was available on the internet and it therefore considered these parts of the report to be exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 21 of the Act (information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means). Although the Treasury provided the complainant with some of the parts of the report which were not available on the internet, it argued that the remaining sections were exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) and section 27(1)(a) (international relations). The Commissioner has concluded that HM Treasury was correct to rely on these three exemptions to withhold the remainder of the report although in handling this request it breached a number of procedural requirements of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0054 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50202116
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.532418

Council of The Isles of Scilly (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Oct 2012

The complainant made a request for the amount spent by the Council in legal fees processing his FOI requests, broken down by each request. Whilst receipt of this request was acknowledged by the Council, no substantive response has been provided to the complainant. The Information Commissioner’s decision is the Council did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA. The Council breached section 10(1) FOIA by failing to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held, to comply with section 1(1)(a); and
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50460168
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.529889

Cheshire West and Chester Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 11 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant has requested the contents of two planning files – 2/3/4836 and 2/3/4710, from Cheshire West and Chester Council. The two files relate to the construction of Mill View Primary School in Chester and they date back to the mid-1960s. The Commissioner’s decision is that Chester West and Cheshire Council has provided the complainant with all of the recorded information it holds in respect of the two planning files. The Council has therefore complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council has acted in contravention of Regulation 11 of the EIR for its failure to conduct a formal internal review in response to the complainant’s representations. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no further action in this matter.
EIR 5(1): Not upheld EIR 11: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0585812
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560885

Birmingham City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 15 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to a loft conversion. Birmingham City Council withheld the information under the exception for adverse effect to the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50592872
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560871

St Bartholomew’s School (Education (School)): ICO 28 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information from St Bartholomew’s School (‘the School’) relating to IQ and dyslexia profiles of children at the School. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School does not hold some of the information that has been requested. With respect to the remaining information, the Commissioner considers that this is exempt under section 12 of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner has determined that the School has breached section 10 of the FOIA as it failed to provide the complainant with a response within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the School to take no steps.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 12: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50596995
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560858

Waltham Forest Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 28 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (‘the Council’) about the performance of a private contractor with regard to a contract for the delivery of a domestic waste management services. The Council withheld part of the requested information under section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly applied section 43(2) to the information that it has withheld. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose to the complainant the information falling within Part 5(a)-(f) of his request to which it had applied section 43(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 43: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50595283
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560862

Transport for London (Education (Other)): ICO 21 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information from Transport for London about a Low Emission Zone exemption – the Showman’s Discount – for which some travelling showpeople are eligible. Transport for London was able to release some related information but says that it is not obliged to comply with the specific request under the provision at section 12 of the FOIA (cost exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that Transport for London has correctly applied section 12 to the request and complied with the obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. He does not require Transport for London to take any steps.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50593400
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560861

Southwark Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 28 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information from the Southwark Council relating to a named individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50610750
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560857

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50605230: ICO 25 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to archived digital records. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) failed to respond to this request for information within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so MoJ breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. As MoJ has now responded, the Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50605230
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560839

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50603218: ICO 18 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request for information to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) relating to the numbers of prisoners released in error since 2013, together with 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 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: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50603218
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560838

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health (NHS)): ICO 28 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant made a freedom of information request to NHS England for the costs of suspending a named doctor. In response NHS England refused to confirm or deny if the requested information was held under section 40(5)(b)(i). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5)(b)(i) was incorrectly applied and NHS England failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) of the Act by refusing to confirm or deny if the requested information was held. The Commissioner requires the public authority to inform the complainant whether or not it holds the requested 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 (or the Court of Session in Scotland) pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 40: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50597079
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560844

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50609417: ICO 18 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information about the number of applications to make a child a ward of court that have been made due to fear of radicalisation. To date she has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MoJ’) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. He requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50609417
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560841

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50599870: ICO 18 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about the application of an amnesty dated April 2008 under the terms of which the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) did not seek repayments of certain monies previously paid on account to qualifying providers of legal aid services. The Commissioner’s decision is that MOJ does not hold any recorded information beyond that provided to the complainant and so had complied with section 1(1) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require MOJ to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50599870
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560836

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50607852: ICO 18 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to statistical data about court orders made in the Family Court together with information about domestic violence and child protection matters. To date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that MoJ has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. He requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50607852
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560840

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50601984: ICO 21 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant made a three part request about General Civil Restraint Orders (‘GCROs’) issued by the Court of Appeal over a specified time period. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) responded to him on three separate occasions, but ultimately refused to provide the information requested in part one of the request citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. It relied on section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) in response to part two for ‘live’ GRCOs and section 40(2) for those which had expired. For part three of the request, the MOJ provided a discretionary response outside of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has provided inaccurate and misleading information in relation to part one. He finds that sections 21 and 40(2) are not engaged in relation to the names of the judges and that section 40(2) is not engaged in relation to some names of the individuals in part two. He also finds that the MOJ did not respond to part three of the request in accordance with FOIA. He does uphold the MOJ’s reliance on section 21 in relation to the names of individuals with GCROs from the Court of Appeal which are currently in force. He requires the MOJ to issue a fresh response as set out in the ‘steps’ in the decision notice.
FOI 21: Partly upheld FOI 40: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50601984
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560837

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 26 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested a list of film or television projects that the Home Office had communicated with during 2013 to 2015. The Home Office failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to this request within 20 working days of receipt. The Home Office is now required to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office respond to the request. The Home Office 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 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50608803
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560824

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 18 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a meeting that occurred on 23 March 2011. The Home Office denied holding any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office does not hold the requested information. No steps are required as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50596280
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560821

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 21 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a previous request made under the FOIA. The Home Office refused to comply with the request because it considered it vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was not entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1).
FOI 14: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50577763
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560820

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 13 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a review carried out of English language test suppliers and a review of the ‘Life in the UK Test’. The Home Office failed to substantively respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to respond to this request the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Home Office is now required to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50607090
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560823

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50576113: ICO 18 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a multi-part request to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) requesting information relating to a job re-grading exercise. The MoJ cited section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied section 12. He requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50576113
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560834

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50598703: ICO 18 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about a named councillor who is also a Justice of the Peace/Magistrate. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing section 40(5)(b)(i) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has properly relied on section 40(5) to refuse this request. He does not require the MOJ to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50598703
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560835

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 19 Jan 2016

IC The complainant requested information relating to any contact that the spouse of an MP, who is also employed by that MP, has had with the Home Office as part of that employment. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5) is not engaged and so the Home Office is now required to provide to the complainant confirmation or denial as to whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to write to the complainant with confirmation or denial as to whether the requested information is held. In relation to any information that is held, this should either be disclosed to the complainant, or the complainant informed of the grounds on which the information is withheld.
FOI 40: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50603865
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560822

Environment Agency (Central Government ): ICO 27 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant has requested from the Environment Agency (the EA) the amount of evidence (measured in tonnes) of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) met through the use of the Compliance Fee broken down by category and the identity of the Producer Compliance Schemes (PCSs) that made use of the Compliance Fee to meet their obligations. The Environment Agency has withheld the requested information under Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR on the basis that disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Environment Agency has successfully applied Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR.
EIR 12(5)(e): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50581665
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560804

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Central Government ): ICO 27 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (‘Defra’) relating to Prince’s Consent. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and section 12(1) and section 12(2) of the FOIA to the request. However, Defra has breached regulation 11 as it failed to provide an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires Defra to take no steps.
FOI 12: Not upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld EIR 11: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50572165
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560798

Durham County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 26 Jan 2016

ICO The complainant has requested legal advice relating to a planning application. Durham County Council refused the request under the exception to adverse affect to the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that Durham County Council has correctly withheld the information under regulation 12(5)(b) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0601925
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560802