London Borough of Haringey (Local Government): ICO 20 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested information , generated by the prosecution of offences under section 179 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 , by London Borough of Haringey Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Haringey Council correctly relied on section 12 (costs) not to meet the complainant’s request for information .
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-42772

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675014

Department of Health and Social Care (Central Government): ICO 2 Nov 2022

The complainant has requested the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) disclose the internal assessments/reviews on the Covid pandemic. The DHSC refused to disclose the requested information citing section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the DHSC confirmed that it was now willing to disclose the requested information to the complainant. But despite various communications the Commissioner was unable to get the DHSC to confirm when this would be done. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to disclose the requested information to the complainant within the statutory timeframe outlined in his notice.
FOI 35(1)(a): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 145190

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.683164

London Borough of Croydon (Local Government): ICO 20 Oct 2021

The complainant submitted a request to London Borough of Croydon (‘the Council’) for information about specific road closures and low traffic neighbourhoods. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Croydon (the Council) has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’). The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. – Issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request. The Council 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 Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-123835

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675013

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 5 Nov 2021

The complainant requested information from the Home Office regarding the assessment of relaxing Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act Stop and Search Scheme. By the date of this notice the Home Office has not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-132037

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675101

Buckinghamshire Council (Local Government): ICO 1 Nov 2022

The complainant requested from Buckinghamshire Council (the Council) information relating to Westhorpe Interchange project. The Council provided some information relating to the request, but refused the remaining information under regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion, unfinished documents and incomplete data) of EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) of EIR is engaged and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
EIR 12(4)(d): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 172810

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.683157

Shattock v Shattock: 23 Apr 1866

Property was settled on a feme coverte for her separate use for life, with a power to appoint it by deed or will. She executed the power by will. Held, that the appointed property was not liable to pay a promissory note signed by her.

Citations:

[1866] EngR 140, (1866) 35 Beav 489, (1866) 55 ER 986

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Wills and Probate, Contract

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.280851

HM Revenue and Customs v Wilkes: CA 7 Dec 2022

Whether the appellants, HM Revenue and Customs, can issue a ‘discovery assessment’ pursuant to section 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 where they learn that a taxpayer who has neither delivered a tax return in respect of the material year nor been notified of a requirement to do so was liable for high income child benefit charge.

Judges:

Lord Justice Newey

Lord Justice Baker
And

Lord Justice Arnold

Citations:

[2022] EWCA Civ 1612

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.683783

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 11 Oct 2022

The complainant has requested information relating to the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care – Call for Ideas. The Department for Education (DfE) provided some information, withheld some information under section 21 FOIA as it considers it was already accessible to the applicant and confirmed that some of the requested information would not be published until Spring 2022. At internal review DfE confirmed that the information which it planned to publish in Spring 2022 was being withheld under section 22 FOIA. The Commissioner considers that DfE were correct to apply 22 FOIA in this case at the time of the request. However the Commissioner also notes that the information which was withheld under section 22 FOIA was published in May 2022. The Commissioner does however consider that DfE breached section 17(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner does not require MHRA to take any remedial steps.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 22: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 159128

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.682914

Shrewsbury Town Council (Local Government): ICO 3 Feb 2022

The complainant requested from Shrewsbury Town Council any information held in connection with a Code of Conduct outcome or investigation into the actions of named officers and councillors concerning alleged malfeasance in public office relating to the disposal of Greenfields Recreations Ground. Shrewsbury Town Council stated it did not hold any recorded information as no Code of Conduct investigation had been carried out at the date of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Shrewsbury Town Council does not hold the requested information based on the balance of probabilities and therefore complied with Section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take and steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO ic-110286

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.674921

Maker With Rame Parish Council (Local Government): ICO 17 Nov 2021

The complainant requested information from Maker with Rame Parish Council, Cornwall (‘the Council’) about decision-making in relation to a planning application, and in relation to its dealings with him as an individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that some parts of the request fell to be considered under the EIR, and some parts under the FOIA. The Council failed to respond to any part of the request within 20 working days, and was therefore in breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR and section 10 of the FOIA. As a response has now been issued, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-127265

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.675121

Hale v Bushill: 2 Mar 1866

A testator had granted to the Plaintiff the right of pre-emption of an estate which he had previously devised to an infant. The Plaintiff exercised his option after the testator’s death and filed his bill against the infant and executor for specific performance.

Citations:

[1866] EngR 116, (1866) 35 Beav 343, (1866) 55 ER 928

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Wills and Probate

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.280827

Canterbury City Council (Local Government): ICO 1 Nov 2019

The complainant has requested information about complaints in respect of a specified property over a defined period of time. Canterbury City Council withheld the information because it considered that the information within scope was the personal data of third parties and that disclosure would breach the GDPR principles. The Commissioner’s decision is that, as the complainant and his family have either owned or occupied the land in question during the time period specified, all the information falling within the scope of the request is in fact the complainant’s own personal data. She has therefore applied Regulation 5(3) of the EIR proactively to prevent disclosure. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken under the EIR.
EIR 13(1): Complaint upheld EIR 5(3): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0851659

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.650274