Category: Information

Cambridgeshire Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 13 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information about a Speedwatch Coordinator and other Speedwatch-related matters from Cambridgeshire Constabulary (the ‘Constabulary’). The Constabulary provided some information, withheld some by virtue of section 40(2) (personal information) and advised that further information was not held. The Commissioner is satisfied that, where cited, section 40(2) is properly engaged. He is also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, where claimed no further information is held. No steps are required.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50587581
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555897

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government ): ICO 26 Oct 2015

Central government
The complainant requested information relating to service charges for tenants in receipt of housing benefit. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) denied holding any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the DWP is unlikely to hold any information relevant to the complainant’s request.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583626
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555919

Cabinet Office (Central Government ) FS50579583: ICO 12 Oct 2015

The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to the award of honours to the late Sir Cyril Smith, former MP for Rochdale. The public authority disclosed the vast majority of the information held within the scope of the request. The remaining information was withheld by the authority on the basis of the exemptions at sections 37(1)(b) and 40(2) FOIA. It also relied on the provisions in sections 23(5) and 24(2) FOIA as the basis for neither confirming nor denying whether the public authority held any information in scope subject to the exemptions at sections 23(1) and 24(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 37(1)(b), and The public authority was entitled to rely on sections 23(5) and 24(2). No steps are required.
FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 24: Not upheld FOI 37: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50579583
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555895

Copeland Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 8 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant requested information from Copeland Borough Council (‘the council’) relating to a collection of art works known as ‘The Copeland Collection’. The council sent a reply however it took longer than 20 working days to respond and it did not complete an internal review. The complainant complained about these issues and also alleged that the council had not provided all the recorded information held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’) for not confirming that it held some of the information and that some of it was not held within 20 working days. It also breached section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) because it did not respond to the request within 20 working days and it did not provide all the information it held at the time. The Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’) does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50563387
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555910

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Central Government): ICO 12 Oct 2015

iCO Central government
The complainant has requested wide-ranging information about two meetings between the Prince of Wales and two Secretaries of State. DEFRA identified that the information described in the request spanned two access regimes, the FOIA and the EIR. It refused to comply with the request on the basis that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(1) of the FOIA; and, to the extent that it also sought access to environmental information, responding to the request would also be manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that complying with the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit under section 12(1) of the FOIA for some of the information. In relation to the information which constitutes environmental information, it is also a manifestly unreasonable request by virtue of cost under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. DEFRA is therefore entitled to refuse to comply with the request. However, the Commissioner found that DEFRA breached regulation 11(3) of the EIR by failing to provide an internal review. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 12: Not upheld EIR 11(3): Upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0570314
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555918

Codsall Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 1 Oct 2015

ICO Local government (Parish council)
The complainant requested to know the reason for the exclusion of the press and public from parts of the meetings of Codsall Parish Council (‘the council’) as well as the outcomes or resolutions. The council indicated the general reason why the press and public had been excluded but it said that details of the resolutions or outcomes was exempt information under section 40(2), 41 and 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’). These exemptions relate to third party personal data, information provided in confidence and legal professional privilege. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council also said that it wished to argue that the request was vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) was correctly applied except in relation to some information that was environmental and should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). This information was excepted under regulation 12(4)(b) and the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. He finds that the council breached section 17(5) for not relying on section 14(1) initially. The council also breached regulations 14(1) and 14(2) of the EIR for not relying on regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld EIR 14(1): Upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50582494
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555906

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills v Information Commissioner: FTTGRC 27 Jul 2012

[2012] UKFTT 2012 – 0057(GRC)
Bailii
The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Department for Business, Innovation and Skills v Information Commissioner 0057 FTTGRC 27-Jul-2012
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.463745

University of Sussex (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Jan 2013

ICO The complainant has requested from the University of Sussex details of how many students enrolled on to different music streams of the Professional Musicianship course at the Brighton Institute for Modern Music (BIMM) and how many of these students were female. This course is validated by the University and BIMM is a partner institution. The University provided some of the requested information, and stated that the rest was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the outstanding information is not held. He therefore does not require the University to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50448831
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.527902

National Archives (Central Government) FS50560777: ICO 30 Jul 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to a file, listed as ‘PREM 19/355’ about the private papers of the late Duke of Windsor. The Commissioner’s decision is that The National Archives (TNA) has correctly applied section 37(1)(a) – communications with the sovereign, and section 40(2) – personal information, to the information. TNA also cited section 41 – information provided in confidence, but as he found that all the information is exempt under section 37 and 40, the Commissioner has not gone on to consider the application of section 41. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 37: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50560777
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555639

National Archives (Central Government) FS50556804: ICO 30 Jul 2015

The complainant has requested information in the closed file ‘Prem 19/582 – Royal Family. Duke of Edinburgh’s statement on nuclear war: correspondence between the Duke and Fenner Brockway, Lord Brockway’. TNA refused to disclose the requested information under section 37(1)(a), section 37(1)(ac), section 40(2) and section 41 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA correctly applied section 37(1)(a) and section 37(1)(ac) in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 37: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50556804
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555638

Northumberland County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Jan 2014

The complainant has requested Northumberland County Council’s record management and personal data policies. Northumberland County Council explained it was updating its data protection policy and refused to provide it citing the exemption at section 22 (information intended for future publication) as its basis for doing so. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it identified relevant links on its website and provided them to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has contravened the requirements of section 1, 10 and 17 in the handling of this request and that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 21(3) (information reasonably accessible by other means). No steps are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50505952
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.527390

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Jun 2013

The complainant has requested information concerning programmes which have been edited by the BBC to meet the expectations of a modern audience and the reasons why editing took place in each case. 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 for the purposes of -journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall inside FOIA. 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

[2013] UKICO FS50491386
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.528321

Cornwall Council (Local Government): ICO 9 Jul 2020

The complainant requested information from Cornwall Council (‘the Council’) about bonuses paid to employees of Cormac Solutions Limited. The Council stated that this information, if held, would be held by the parent company of Cormac Solutions, Corserv Limited, and the Council itself did not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

[2020] UKICO fs50875794
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.653720

Birmingham City Council (Local Government (City Council)) FER0585505: ICO 28 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested recorded information held by Birmingham City Council in connection with planning application 2014/09159/PA. This concerns the change of use of a residential property to a place of worship and faith-based educational institution. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold certain pieces of recorded information in reliance on Regulations 12(4)(e) and 13 of the EIR. He also finds that the Council has complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR, where it has advised the complainant that it does not hold certain other pieces of information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
EIR 5(1): Not upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Not upheld EIR 13: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0585505
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555885

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 5 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information redacted from an open file in the National Archives and retained by the public authority. The authority denied the request in reliance on the exemptions at sections 37(1)(a), 40(2) and 41(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information redacted from file PREM 11/4443 (the withheld information) in reliance on the exemption at section 37(1)(a) FOIA. No steps required.
FOI 37: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50573097
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555892

Birmingham City Council (Local Government (City Council)) FS50587849: ICO 5 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested recorded information held by Birmingham City Council. The requested information relates to a complaint made by the complainant to Moor Hall Primary School which concerns the school’s charging policy for the Moorhens before and after-school club. The Council determined that the requested information was subject to legal professional privilege and refused the complainant’s request in reliance on section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has appropriately applied section 42 to the information it is withholding. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
FOI 42: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50587849
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555887

Breckland Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 8 Oct 2015

The complainant has made a request to Breckland Council (‘the council’) for information about meetings held between the council and a third party about the agreement of a noise management plan. The council confirmed that no information was held, which the complainant disputed. The Commissioner’s decision is that no recorded information is held. However the council breached regulation 5(2) by failing to provide a response to the information request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 5: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50577055
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555888

Cabinet Office (Central Government ) FS50579066: ICO 12 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a speech by the then Minister for the Civil Service. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it considered compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office can refuse the complainant’s request under section 12(1) of the Act. No steps are required.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50579066
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555894

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 22 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information about whether certain named individuals, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair, have been contacted by the Chilcot Inquiry as part of the Maxwellisation process. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information within the scope of the request citing section 41(2) (information provided in confidence) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is not obliged to provide confirmation or denial in response to the complainant’s request by virtue of section of 41(2). No steps are required.
FOI 41: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50578135
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555893

Birmingham City Council (Local Government (City Council)) FS50584670: ICO 14 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested recorded information about public health funerals undertaken by Birmingham City Council, and in particular, he seeks the names and addresses of the deceased persons and the dates of their funerals. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has properly applied section 31(1)(a) to the requested information in this case. The Council is therefore entitled to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50584670
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555886

Attorney Generals Office (Central Government ): ICO 12 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant submitted five questions about the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and the European Convention on Human Rights. The AGO did not treat the questions as requests for information under the FOIA however the Commissioner considers that it should have done. During the Commissioner’s investigation the AGO confirmed that it did not hold any recorded information in relation to the requests. The Commissioner considers that, on the balance of probabilities, the AGO does not hold any of the requested information. In failing to inform the complainant that no information was held within twenty working days the AGO breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA. However, in light of his findings above the Commissioner does not require the AGO to take any steps as a result of this decision.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50571043
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555873

Warwick District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 30 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested a confidential Strategic Opportunity Proposal referred to in the agenda for a meeting of the Council together with a further report on that proposal referred to in the agenda for a subsequent meeting. The Council originally refused the request under section 43 of FOIA. At the internal review stage it reconsidered the request under the EIR and refused it under regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to withhold a limited amount of the requested information under regulation 12(5)(e) however the exception does not apply to the majority of the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information identified by the Commissioner as not falling within the scope of the exception provided by regulation 12(5)(e). 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. The Commissioner has also found that the names of two individuals can be redacted from the disputed information under the exception provided by regulation 13 – personal information. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 13: Not upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Partly upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0579004
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555862

BBC (Other): ICO 5 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested the number of complaints made about perceived political bias. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50593574
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555883

BBC (Other): ICO 1 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant made a number of requests to the BBC for information about its coverage of the 2015 General Election. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50587101
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555880

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 14 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested details of deceased people who have had a public health funeral. The Commissioner’s decision is that Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council has correctly applied the law enforcement exemption at section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA. He does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50586033
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555877

BBC (Other) FS50590819: ICO 21 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested the payments to the contributors, viewing figures and the number of complaints made against the programme ‘Welsh Heartland: The Llyn Peninsula’. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50590819
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555882

Arun District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 8 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to costs expended on Bognor Regis regeneration. Arun District Council provided some summarised information and stated that further information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Arun District Council does, on the balance of probabilities, hold further information and has therefore incorrectly applied the exception at regulation 12(4)(a). He has also decided that the council failed to comply with regulation 11(4) by taking almost 5 months to provide an internal review response. The Commissioner requires the public authority either comply with regulation 5(1) or issue a new refusal notice giving valid grounds for refusal. The public authority must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 11(4): Upheld EIR 12(4)(a): Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50587647
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555872

BBC (Other): ICO 22 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant has requested the number of complaints made against the NHS question put to parliamentary candidates during a local radio programme in April 2015. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50588897
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555881

BBC (Other) FS50583724: ICO 21 Oct 2015

ICO The complainant requested copies of all communications from the Conservative Party about the Election in May 2015. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and was excluded from FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583724
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555879

Thanet District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 7 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested legal advice received by Thanet District Council (the ‘Council’) regarding Ramsgate Royal Sands/Pleasurama development. The Council initially refused this citing section 31 (law enforcement) but revised this at internal review, citing section 31, section 42 (legal professional privilege) and section 43 (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 42 as its basis for withholding the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 42: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50574100
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555860

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50593831: ICO 21 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) about the number of cases struck out as a result of administrative errors. The MOJ sought further clarification of the request which the complainant provided on two occasions. However, the MOJ said it requires the complainant to clarify the information she is seeking before it can respond; citing section 1(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has properly relied on section 1(3) of FOIA. However, as the MOJ failed to provide its response within the statutory 20 working days framework it thereby breached section 10(1) of FOIA. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50593831
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555829

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Education (Other)): ICO 16 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) information about its handling of a complaint case. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to deal with the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA, the PHSO has breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. He requires the PHSO to issue a response to the complainant’s information request under the FOIA. The PHSO must take this step 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

[2015] UKICO FS50582089
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555839

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50583802: ICO 10 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested information about prisoners’ Incentives and Earned Privileges (‘IEP’) status from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). This request was refused by the MOJ on the basis that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated and has found that the MOJ correctly relied on section 12(1) in refusing to provide the requested information. However, the MOJ failed to provide its refusal to respond within the statutory 20 working days framework and thereby breached section 17(1) of FOIA. He does not require the MOJ to take any further steps.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583802
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555826

Durham University (Education (University)): ICO 10 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has made a number of requests to Durham University (the University) for information relating to the testing methods used with regard to Reading, Kendrick and Slough schools. This decision notice concerns one request, which asked for copies of raw test results. The University considered the test data engaged the ‘commercial interests’ (section 43(2)) exemption in FOIA and found that on balance the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly applied section 43(2) of FOIA and has decided that in all the circumstances the public interest in favour of maintaining the exception does outweigh the public interest in favour of disclosure. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 43: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50566015
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555796

Northamptonshire Police (Police and Criminal Justice ): ICO 30 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to correspondence and / or meetings between police staff and outside bodies regarding the former MP Cyril Smith. Northamptonshire Police neither confirmed nor denied holding relevant information, citing the exemptions in sections 23(5) (information supplied by or relating to security bodies), 30(3) (investigations and proceedings), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northamptonshire Police was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 23(5) and so was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 23: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583151
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555836

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50583876: ICO 10 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to telephone calls made to a named third party. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information citing section 40(5) of FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 40(5)(b)(i). He requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583876
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555827

Peterborough City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 10 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested a valuation report prepared by a company of chartered surveyors for Peterborough City Council in relation to the potential sale of a specific site. Peterborough City Council disclosed some information and withheld some under regulations 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information) and 12(5)(f) (voluntary supply of information). The Commissioner’s decision is that Peterborough City Council has applied regulation 12(5)(e) appropriately to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require Peterborough City Council to take any further steps.
EIR 12(5)(e): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50566023
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555840

Leeds City Council FS50585444: ICO 28 Sep 2015

ICO (Local Government (City Council)) The complainant has requested copies of marriage notices. Leeds City Council (the council) refused the request relying on section 21 of the FOIA, as it determined that the information is reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is able to rely on section 21 of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 21: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50585444
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555817

Leeds City Council FS50574398: ICO 28 Sep 2015

ICO (Local Government (City Council)) The complainant requested information about the Head of Internal Audit and information with regards to staff suspensions. Leeds City Council (the council) provided some information and initially refused the remaining under section 40(5) of the FOIA – to neither confirm nor deny – and section 21 of the FOIA – information reasonably accessible by other means. It later amended its refusal under section 40(5) to instead rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. During the Commissioner’s investigations, the council amended its refusal back to section 40(5) of the FOIA and no longer sought to rely on section 21 of the FOIA, providing the information to that part of the request. The complainant asked the Commissioner to determine the council’s reliance on section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50574398
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555816

East Devon District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 17 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has made a request to East Devon District Council (‘the council’) for information about the officers and members involved in a previous information request. The council disclosed held information, but the complainant contested that further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority has disclosed all relevant held information. However, in failing to provide held information within the time for compliance, it has breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50573485
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555797

City of London Police (Police and Criminal Justice ): ICO 10 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information connected to any attendance by the City of London Police (‘COLP’) at the Sun Newspaper premises between 01 January 1980 and 01 January 1983. COLP provided some recently generated information but advised the complainant that it does not hold anything further. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no information is held. He requires no steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50586211
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555780

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50571695: ICO 10 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant made three requests for information to the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused a previous request under section 14 of the FOIA and that refusal was upheld by the Commissioner. The MoJ are now relying on section 17(6) of the FOIA to not respond to these three further requests for information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly relied on section 17(6) of the FOIA and so was not obliged to respond to the three information requests in question. The Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 17: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50571695
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555824

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50593788: ICO 28 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) about the cost of prison food and about the menus typically available to prisoners. To date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that MoJ has breached 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. 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 10: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50593788
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555828

Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice ): ICO 10 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to protesters outside the GP clinic on Colombo Street, Southwark. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the MPS breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MPS to respond to the request. The MPS 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

[2015] UKICO FS50585047
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555782

Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 10 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to meetings the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria (the ‘PCC’) held with members of the public. The PCC refused the request on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PCC cited section 12(1) correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with the request. However, he has also found that the PCC did not comply with its obligation under section 16(1) to provide advice and assistance to the requester as it did not provide guidance as to how the complainant’s request could be refined to bring it within the cost limit. It is now required to respond to the complainant with this advice. The Commissioner requires the PCC to write to the complainant with advice as to how his request could be refined to bring it within the cost limit. The PCC 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 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50576137
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555842

Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust (Health (NHS)): ICO 7 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information about research records, which Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) says it does not hold. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold the requested information. He considers that the Trust has met its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA and does not require it to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50581777
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555815

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50573033: ICO 15 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested a list of convicted corporations from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) held on a specified database. The MOJ refused to provide the information in its entirety, relying on section 32 (court records), section 40(2) (personal information), and section 43(2) (commercial interests).The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 32(1)(c) and 32(2)(b) of FOIA are engaged. He has therefore not considered the MOJ’s reliance on the other exemptions. He does not require the MOJ to take any steps.
FOI 32: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50573033
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555825

BBC (Other): ICO 30 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information about the number of video auditions to join the presenting team of ‘Top Gear’. The BBC explained that 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 for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and is not caught by the FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and does not require the BBC to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50593758
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555764

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50590627: ICO 20 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a court proceeding. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA in failing to respond and it is now required to provide a response. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to respond to the request. 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50590627
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555738

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50558880: ICO 30 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to polling research regarding the then impending Scottish independence referendum. The Cabinet Office provided some information to the complainant, but refused the remainder under section 22(1)(a) and 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Cabinet Office also stated that should section 22(1)(a) be overturned there was information being withheld under that exemption which was exempt under sections 35(1)(a), 43(1) and 43(2) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Cabinet Office provided to the complainant all of the held information relating to who commissioned the work from Ipsos MORI to which exemptions were not applied. He also considers that sections 22(1)(a), 35(1)(a), and 43(2) of the Act have, ultimately, been correctly applied. He has not considered whether section 43(1) applies because the relevant information was also withheld under section 43(2). However, the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) of the Act for failing to inform the complainant that sections 22(1)(a), 43(1) and 43(2) applied when it issued its initial refusal notice. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken by the public authority in respect of this matter.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 22: Not upheld FOI 35: Not upheld FOI 43: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50558880
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555773

National Gallery (Education (Other)): ICO 20 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested information from the National Gallery about a contract for providing visitor services and security. The National Gallery refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA on the basis that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the National Gallery has correctly applied section 14(1) to the request and so he does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the Act.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50590565
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555739

Birmingham City Council (Local Government (City Council)) FER0579698: ICO 8 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information contained in communications between the China Railways Group Limited and Birmingham City Council which concern HS2-related infrastructure projects. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council is entitled to withhold the information it holds which is relevant to the complainant’s request in reliance on Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
EIR 12(5)(e): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0579698
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555766

Charity Commission (Local Government (Other)): ICO 29 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested communications between two named organisations and the Charity Commission’s Chief Executive, Chairman, Legal Director, Director of Investigations, Monitoring and Enforcement and the Chief Operating Officer. The Charity Commission provided the complainant with some of the information he requested. It withheld the remaining information under section 31(1)(g) with subsection (2)(a), (c), (f) and (g) and section 40(2) and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(h) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50591677
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555776

BBC (Other): ICO 24 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information about statistics broadcast on a particular BBC television programme. The BBC says that the information is excluded from the FOIA because it is held for the purpose of ‘journalism, art or literature’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is derogated and the BBC is not obliged to comply with the request under the FOIA. He does not require the BBC to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50589802
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555763

BBC (Other): ICO 16 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information on a search warrant executed by the Metropolitan Police. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50585481
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555762

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50582481: ICO 20 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested information about small claims in the County Court. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) passed the request to Plymouth County Court to respond to under the ‘normal course of business.’ The Court then provided the complainant with a leaflet which it said addressed her request. The complainant, however, disagreed and twice requested the MOJ to carry out an internal review which the MOJ refused because it said that the request had not been handled under the FOIA. Whilst the Commissioner is satisfied that the request constitutes a valid request under FOIA, he has concluded that the request was legitimately dealt with in the normal course of business. He also finds that the request has been answered and that the complainant did not suffer any detriment as a result of the way in which the request was handled by the MOJ. He does not require the public authority to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 16: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50582481
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555736

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50584524: ICO 19 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the number of barring orders made in a specified time period. 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

[2015] UKICO FS50584524
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555737

Buckinghamshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 7 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested recorded information concerning the 11+ test arrangements for Buckinghamshire Schools. The Commissioner’s decision is that Buckinghamshire County Council does not hold the information requested by the complainant for any of its own purposes. By virtue of section 3(2) of the FOIA, the Council is not required to disclose the information it holds. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 3: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50555840
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555772

Braintree District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 9 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information with regards to rent paid by tenants in a named area. Braintree District Council (the council) provided a response, after a complaint was made to the Commissioner by the complainant that the response was overdue. The council refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered it a vexatious request. Following the response, the complainant asked the Commissioner to issue a decision notice recording a breach for the time it took the council to respond to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as its response was provided outside the required 20 working days. As the council has now provided its response, the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50586297
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555768

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 16 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to meetings and correspondence from its internal groups responsible for elections. The Cabinet Office acknowledged the complainant’s request but has not issued a response which fulfils its obligations under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a response to the complainant under the Act. 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 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50592004
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555774

Birmingham City Council (Local Government (City Council)) FER0574954: ICO 8 Sep 2015

ICO The complainant has requested copies of the complete correspondence that Birmingham City Council received from the China Railways Group Limited in respect of the HS2 rail proposals. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has properly applied Regulation 12(5)(e) to the information which the complainant seeks and it is therefore entitled to withhold that information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
EIR 12(5)(e): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0574954
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555765

Bedfordshire Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 14 Sep 2021

The complainant requested information about injury awards for police officers. Bedfordshire Police provided some information within the scope of the request, but refused to provide the number of police officers granted an injury award for specified years (part 2 of the request), citing section 40(2) of FOIA, the exemption for personal information. The complainant’s complaint focused only on the section 40(2) refusal. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, Bedfordshire Police partly revised its position in that it said it did not hold information for the years 2018/19 or 2019/20, but maintained that section 40(2) applied to the information it held for 2017/18. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bedfordshire Police has correctly relied on section 40(2) in the circumstances of this case. She also finds on the balance of probabilities, that Bedfordshire Police does not hold the requested information for the years 2018/19 or 2019/20 for the reasons set out in this notice. No steps are required as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0274 under appeal.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-72271
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.669487

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50579089: ICO 10 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held the requested information but refused to provide it citing sections 27(1) and 27(2) of the FOIA (international relations). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner did not proceed to consider MoJ’s application of section 27(2) to the same information. The MoJ is not required to take any steps as a result of this notice.
FOI 27: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50579089
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555735

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50564749: ICO 19 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the gender split of applicants applying for Non Molestation Orders (NMOs) and Occupancy Orders from 1st Jan 2011 to 30th June 2014. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided exact figures where the numbers exceeded five but refused to provide figures less than five on the basis that individuals could be identified and section 40(2) was therefore engaged. The Commissioner’s decision is that MoJ has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold figures less than five. He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50564749
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555734

Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council: ICO 5 Aug 2015

ICO Local Government (Borough Council) – The complainant has requested in a 14 part request from London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (the ‘Council’) information relating to residents’ parking complaints in a particular area. The Commissioner investigated the Council’s response in relation to parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11 to 14. It applied section 12 of the FOIA to parts 1, 2 and 3 and confirmed that it does not hold any further information to the remaining parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12 to parts 1, 2 and 3 as a basis for refusing the request. To the remaining parts of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. Therefore, the Council has complied with its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 12: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50561272
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555722

HS2 Ltd (Education (Other)): ICO 17 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested a copy of 75 questions which the Major Projects Authority had put to High Speed Two (HS2) Limited. HS2 dealt with the request under FOIA and withheld the information under section 36 – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information constitutes environmental information and therefore the request falls to be considered under the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a fresh response under the EIR and either disclose the 75 questions under regulation 5(1), or issue a refusal notice in accordance with regulation 14. 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. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 2(1): Upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0570401
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555727

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50551592: ICO 25 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to Mahmood Hussein Mattan, an individual whose conviction for murder was overturned. Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information within the scope of the request, but withheld the remainder citing section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that MoJ withheld information appropriately. He requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50551592
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555732

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 12 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested training materials for Home Office officials about immigration law. The Home Office disclosed the majority of the requested information, but withheld the remainder under the exemptions provided by sections 31(1)(e) (prejudice to the operation of the immigration controls), 36(2)(c) (other prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information was withheld incorrectly and must now be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose to the complainant the withheld information. 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. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 31: Upheld FOI 36: Upheld FOI 42: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50565161
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555726

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50551750: ICO 25 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to grants of compensation to the family of a man wrongly convicted of murder. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information within the scope of the request, but withheld the remainder citing section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that MoJ incorrectly applied section 40(2) to some of the requested information. The Commissioner requires MoJ to disclose to the complainant the information identified at paragraph 81 of this decision notice. 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 40: Partly upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50551750
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555733

Government Legal Department (Central Government): ICO 4 Aug 2015

The complainant has requested information from the Government Legal Department. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant has requested his own personal data and that the Government Legal Department should have neither confirmed nor denied holding any information by virtue of section 40(5)(a) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50571148
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555720

Waveney District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 27 Jul 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information, including correspondence and emails, between Waveney District Council and its advisors relating to the purchasing of land occupied by a former Sanyo factory. The public authority disclosed some information but withheld several documents containing information within the scope of the request on the basis of section 42, 43 and 36 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly applied the section 42 and 43 exemptions and although the section 36 exemption is engaged in relation to one of the documents the balance of the public interest favours disclosing this information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information described as Documents A, B, C, D and E. 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 36: Upheld FOI 42: Upheld FOI 43: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50561165
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555673

West Berkshire District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 23 Jul 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to a Planning Policy Task Group. West Berkshire District Council disclosed some information but withheld other information (meeting minutes) under the exception for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold the meeting minutes requested in part 4 of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 12(4)(e): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0574712
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555674

Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls School (Education (School)): ICO 6 Jul 2015

ICO The complainant requested the precise number and copies (with personal information redacted if necessary) of letters or emails requesting the appointment of a particular individual for the Headteacher position at Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls School (the School). The School disclosed the precise number of letters but withheld copies of them under section 40(2) of the FOIA as they contained the personal data of the Headteacher and the School Principal. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) of the FOIA is engaged and therefore the School is not obliged to disclose the actual letters. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50576763
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555680

General Medical Council (Local Government (Other)) FS50578888: ICO 3 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information about doctors administratively erased from the Medical Register over the last 5 years for failing to pay the required registration fee (Annual Retention Fee (ARF). The GMC refused to comply with the request under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) as it said it would exceed the cost limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP has correctly applied section 12 FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50578888
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555718

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50560132: ICO 17 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the public duty cost allowance afforded to former Prime Ministers of the UK. The Cabinet Office refused the request under sections 21(1), 22(1) and 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). During the course of the investigation the Cabinet Office sought to rely on sections 12(1) and 41(1) of the Act. The complainant has not sought to appeal against the Cabinet Office’s use of sections 12(1), 21(1) and 22(1) so the Commissioner has not included this in his decision. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to refuse the request under section 41(1) of the Act. He also finds that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) with its late citation of section 41(1). However, as a valid refusal notice has been issued no steps are required. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 41: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50560132
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555692

General Medical Council (Local Government (Other)) FS50579119: ICO 3 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information about doctors dismissed from their employment for failing to pay the Annual Retention Fee. The General Medical Council (GMC) says that to provide a response would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12 of the FOI and it is therefore not obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the General Medical Council has correctly applied section 12 to this request. He does not require the GMC to take any further steps.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50579119
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555719

Charity Commission (Local Government (Other)): ICO 26 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information from the Charity Commission about its inquiry into a particular charity. The Charity Commission has disclosed some of the information and said that some is already reasonably accessible to the complainant (and so exempt under section 21). The Charity Commission has withheld all of the remainder under section 31 (law enforcement). It says that, in addition, sections 40(1) (personal data of the applicant) and/or 40(2)(third person personal information), and/or 41 (information provided in confidence) and/or 42 (legal professional privilege) and/or 43 (commercial interests) also apply to different elements of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied the exemption at section 31 to all of the withheld information and that the public interest favours withholding it. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583351
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555696

BBC (Other): ICO 25 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information from the BBC about a ‘File on Four’ program broadcast on Radio 4. In its response to the complainant, the BBC explained that it held the requested information for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and it therefore fell outside the scope of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is derogated and the BBC is not obliged to comply with the request under the FOIA. He does not require the BBC to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50586208
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555690

BBC (Other): ICO 11 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information about BBC employees. The BBC provided some information but has refused to comply fully with the request because it says to do so would exceed the appropriate limit, under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA because it would exceed the appropriate limit to determine whether it held the remainder of the information requested at parts 1, 2 and 5 of the request, and any of the information requested at parts 3 and 4. He also finds the BBC breached section 10 of the FOIA because it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any further steps.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 12: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50569953
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555689

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 25 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to a report into the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. The Cabinet Office refused to provide it under section 23(1) (security bodies), section 27 (international relations), section 31 (investigations information) and section 40(2) (unfair disclosure of personal data). It upheld this at internal review although failed to communicate this to the complainant in a timely manner. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 23 as a basis for withholding all the requested information. No steps are required. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 23: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50571873
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555693

Hackney London Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 5 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information about complaints and grievances raised within three identified teams with Hackney Homes, which is part of the London Borough of Hackney (the ‘Council’). The Council provided some information. However it withheld part of the request under section 40(2) of the FOIA and explained that some of the required information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is correct to apply section 40(2) to the withheld information and that it does not hold the remaining information. No further steps are required.

[2015] UKICO FS50555985
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555721