The complainant has requested information relating to a contract for day care provision. Northamptonshire County Council initially stated that the information was not held but subsequently disclosed the information during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northamptonshire County Council failed to disclose the requested information within the statutory time limit and breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50670863

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602326

Citations:

[2017] ScotIC 163 – 2017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.616183

The complainant has requested information relating to a letter sent to them by the council regarding a planning application. Kent County Council initially refused the request under the exemption for Legal Professional Privilege – section 42 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it reconsidered the request under the EIR and applied the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent County Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and 14 of the EIR and, correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 5(1): Upheld EIR 13: Upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50677503

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602307

Feasibility study – Carer’s Allowance : Partially upheld

Citations:

[2017] ScotIC 163 – 2017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.616184

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department of Health (DoH) for information related to meetings with Ian Cumming, the Chief Executive of Health Education England. The DoH disclosed some information falling within the scope of the request under but withheld some information under the section 35(1)(a) (policy formulation and development), section 35(1)(d) (operation of ministerial private office) and section 40(2) (personal information) exemptions. During the course of the investigation it disclosed some further information to the complainant and confirmed that rather than section 35, it was now seeking to rely on the section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs etc) exemption to withhold the remaining undisclosed information. The Commissioner has decided that the remaining withheld information is exempt under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also found that section 40(2) applies to the name and contact details of one individual named in the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 36: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50655951

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602270

The complainant has requested information about 999 calls where technician or emergency care assistant-only teams were the first or only responders, for particular years. West Midlands Ambulance Service (WMAS) released some information and withheld some under section 22 of the FOIA (information intended for future publication) and section 22A (research). The Commissioner’s decision is that, with regard to requests 3 and 4, WMAS does not hold the information on particular categories of ambulance call outs for the months June to December 2016. She finds WMAS breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA in this regard as it had confirmed it held information that it did not hold. The Commissioner has also decided that, at the time of the request, the information within the scope of request 1 that WMAS holds did not engage either section 22(1) or section 22A. WMAS was instructed to release this information to the complainant during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. If it has not already done so, WMAS must take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Release to the complainant the information it holds that falls within the scope of request 1, for the months June to December 2016.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 22: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50676366

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602358

The complainant made a request to Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (the council) for information on a proposed new road. The council refused to comply with the request under the exception in regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner has decided that regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged and that, in the specific circumstances of this request, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. She does, however, find that the council breached regulation 5(2) as it did not provide its refusal notice within 20 working days of the date of receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
EIR 12(4)(a): Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FER0636600

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602342

The complainant made a series of requests to the school. By the conclusion of the investigation the only outstanding matter was the school’s alleged failure to provide the personnel advice it had received from the council relating to its head teacher at the time. Ultimately the school argued that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner finds that on the balance of probabilities the school does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in respect this request.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50658803

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602341

The complainant requested information about the duties and responsibilities of sessional prison chaplains and payments made to them. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice relied correctly on the section 14(1) FOIA exemption (vexatious or repeated requests). The Commissioner also decided that, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, MOJ had breached section 10(1) FOIA (time for compliance). As a response has been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any further steps.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50661825

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602319

The complainant made a three part request about an assessment (the ‘Assessment’) which was undertaken in connection with two criminal investigations by Staffordshire Police (‘SP’). In respect of part (1) of the request, SP disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing the exemptions at sections 40(2)(personal information) and 31(1)(a), (b) and (g) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. In respect of parts (2) and (3), SP failed to provide a response. The Commissioner’s decision is that SP was entitled to rely on the exemptions cited in part (1) of the request; however, she finds that SP should have cited section 40(1) in respect of some of that information. In failing to respond to any part of the request within the statutory time limit SP breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. Additionally, in failing to state whether or not its holds information in respect of parts (2) and (3), it breached section 1(1). In respect of parts (2) and (3) of the request the Commissioner requires SP to either provide the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 31: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50673467

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602346

The complainant made a request to Warwickshire County Council (the Council) for information on a proposed new road. The Council refused to provide the requested information and cited regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not provided persuasive arguments to engage regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner considers that in the specific circumstances of this case, regulation 12(4)(b) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b). 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.
EIR 12(4)(b): Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FER0637124

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602354

The complainant has requested information on private hire operators in London including the number of vehicles registered with each one. Transport for London (TfL) refused to provide this information on the basis of section 41 and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has correctly applied the provisions of section 41 to withhold the information and she requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 41: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50676040

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602350

The complainant requested information from Derbyshire County Council (‘the council’) relating to a Flood Risk Assessment. The council provided information but the complainants disputed that the council had provided the information sought. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not in fact hold the information. He finds that the council breached regulation 14(2) and 14(3)(a) for not stating that it did not hold the information sought by relying on the exception under regulation 12(4)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). She does not require any steps to be taken.
EIR 5(1): Not upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld EIR 14(3)(a): Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50665386

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602271

The complainant has requested information which was supplied to Cambridge City Council’s Legal Team and which concerns the property where the complainant lives. The information relates to attempts made by the Council to resolve matters in respect of compliance with Building Regulations and possible proceedings under Section 36(6) of the Building Act 1984. The Council has confirmed that it holds 6 documents which fall within the scope of the complainant’s request. It has withheld 5 of these documents in reliance on section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA and 1 document in reliance on section 21. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridge City Council has correctly applied the exemptions provided by sections 31(1)(g) and 21 of the FOIA. It is therefore entitled to continue to withhold the documents which the complainant seeks.
FOI 31: Not upheld FOI 21: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50681829

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602254

The complainant has requested information about a particular housing file. London Borough of Lambeth Council (LBL) has refused to comply with the request which it says is vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FER0682391

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602311

The complainant made three separate requests for copies of correspondence between the Department for Transport and Devon County Council (the council). The council responded that the information was not held. The complainant was not satisfied with the council’s response to two of the three requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the information is not held for those two requests. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50600906

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602272

The complainant requested information from Sheffield City Council (the Council) relating to the location of trees that had been selected by a Council contractor for the implementation of flexible paving. The Council denied holding any relevant information. The Commissioner investigated the complainant’s appeal and found that the information was held on behalf of the Council by one of its contractors. The Council confirmed that its revised response was that the request was manifestly unreasonable as per regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and that the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. The complainant confirmed he wished to appeal against this refusal of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council incorrectly refused the request as manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the requested information.
EIR 12(4)(b): Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50637180

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602339

The complainant has requested information on a proposed new road from Warwick District Council (the Council). The Council refused to provide the requested information citing the exception at regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged but, in the specific circumstances of this case, the public interest in disclosure of the requested information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner also finds that the Council did not make all information held falling within the scope of the request available to the complainant in response to his request. She also finds the Council in breach of regulation 11(4) as it did not provide the complainant with the outcome of its internal review within the 40 working day statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with an unredacted copy of 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 pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 12(4)(d): Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FER0641017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602353

The complainant has requested information relating to credit balances in respect of all ratepayers within the billing area of London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (‘the Council’). The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50643256

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602288

The complainant has requested information on database design and columns in all of the DVLA’s databases. The DVLA refused the request, relying on section 12 of the FOIA as it considered that to provide the information would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 of the FOIA is not engaged in this case. She also found that the DVLA has breached section 16 of the FOIA as it provided no advice or assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with section 1 of the FOIA without relying on section 12 of the FOIA.
FOI 12: Upheld FOI 16: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50672711

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602274

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT EA – 2009 – 0032 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.428748

Processing Time for A Shotgun Certificate Grant

Citations:

[2017] ScotIC 095 – 2017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.588964

Case Information – Death of William Mcrae

Citations:

[2017] ScotIC 092 – 2017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.588968

Whether Request Was Manifestly Unreasonable

Citations:

[2017] ScotIC 072 – 2017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.588950

Foster Carer Complaints and De-Registrations

Citations:

[2017] ScotIC 073 – 2017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.588961

Copy of An Email – Requester’s Personal Data

Citations:

[2017] ScotIC 082 – 2017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.588956

Road Maintenance Partnership Investigation

Citations:

[2017] ScotIC 067 – 2017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.588955

Procedure Not Followed (Property Redevelopment)

Citations:

[2017] ScotIC 096 – 2017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.588966

ICO The complainant requested information relating to Disability Employment Advisors (DEAs) from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The DWP denied holding any information relevant to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP has not responded to the complainant’s request of 25 November 2014. As the DWP has not issued a response directly to this request it has breached sections 1 and 10 of the Act. In relation to the requests of 20 September 2014 the Commissioner’s decision is that no relevant recorded information is held by the DWP. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a response to the complainant’s request of 25 November 2014. 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

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568924

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555709

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the injury on duty award review conducted by Avon and Somerset Constabulary (‘the Constabulary’). The Constabulary considered that the request was vexatious and relied on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was entitled to refuse to respond to the requests using section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Constabulary to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50579646

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555684

ICO The complainant made a series of requests for information over a short period of time to Avon and Somerset Constabulary (‘the Constabulary’) about its injury on duty (‘IOD’) award review. The Constabulary considered that all the requests were vexatious and relied on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with them. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was entitled to refuse to comply with the requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Constabulary to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50580353

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555686

The complainant has requested information from Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council (the council) relating to a specified business premises. The council has responded to the request, but the complainant requested a decision notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with section 10 of the FOIA as the response was provided within 20 working days. As there has been no breach of the FOIA, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 10: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50585863

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555642

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the amount of money spent by the company McKinsey in the Children’s Division on the Vision 2Action project at the Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has incorrectly applied section 21 of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner has also found that the Trust breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because of the late response. The Commissioner requires the Trust to provide the requested information to the complainant.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 21: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50561958

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555060

ICO The complainant requested from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) information about a call-off contract for theory testing. The DVSA initially refused to comply with the request as it considered it to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. Following its internal review, the DVSA withdrew its reliance on section 14(1) and said the requested information was exempt from disclosure under section 22 because it intended to publish the requested information in the future. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVSA incorrectly applied the exemption under section 22. However, the requested information was published during the Commissioner’s investigation and therefore, he does not require the DVSA to take any steps.
FOI 22: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50569707

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555714

Various requests relating to recruitment: failure to respond within statutory timescales

Citations:

[2015] ScotIC 009 – 2015

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.542641

An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by West Lancashire Borough Council. This follows the theft of a business continuity bag containing emergency response documents and personal data relating to 370 council employees.

Citations:

[2012] UKICO 2012-31

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.529682

The complainant requested information about a Public Rights of Way investigation. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council (‘the Council’) provided some information but withheld other information under section 31 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been handled under the EIR. The Commissioner has found that some of the withheld information constitutes the complainant’s own personal data and therefore exempt under regulation 5(3) of the EIR, the Council correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) to other information and the Council correctly withheld some information under regulation 13 whilst having misapplied it to other information. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the documents withheld under regulation 13, with the exception of any third party personal data relating to members of the public or junior officials contained within them.
EIR 12(4)(d): Complaint not upheld EIR 13: Complaint partly upheld EIR 5: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50688082

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.621344

The complainant requested a copy of a review undertaken into Sport Wales. The Welsh Government provided a copy of the review in question and confirmed that some information had been withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Welsh Government also sought to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c) in respect of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2). She does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50695084

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.621392

The complainant has requested information relating to a proposed development. South Gloucestershire Council disclosed some information and withheld the reminder, citing regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Gloucestershire Council has cited regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR appropriately. However, she considers that SGC has breached regulations 5(2) (time for compliance) and 14(3) (refusal to disclose information) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require South Gloucestershire Council to take any steps following this decision notice.
EIR 12(4)(d): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld EIR 14(3): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0715540

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.621377

The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (The ‘DFE’) relating to details of pre – 2010 academy pledges which had not been fulfilled. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DFE did not deal with the request for information in accordance with section 10 of the FOIA in the following way: It failed to provide a response to the request within that statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50645845

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.572858

The complainant has requested information relating to financial and governance issues at Wakefield City Academies Trust (WCAT). The DfE responded to the request by refusing to disclose the requested information under sections 36, 40 and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is entitled to rely on section 36 of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50713498

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.621312

The complainant has requested information from Mid Sussex District Council (the council) relating to what he has referred to as its ‘Lying Policy’. The council responded by advising that it does not have such a policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50492560

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528900

The complainant made a request to the Marine Management Organisation (- MMO-?) for details of its guidance in respect of travel and subsistence limits. The MMO supplied some information to the complainant. The complainant complained that it had not fully responded to her request. The Commissioner’s decision is that MMO breached sections 1 and 10 by not informing the complainant that it did not hold information in relation to part of her request and by not disclosing additional information in relation to other parts of her request within 20 working days of the request and by the time of the completion of the internal review. As the MMO disclosed to the complainant the additional information that it held that fell within the scope of her request during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, he does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50494284

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528897

The complainant requested copies of the marked pages in the A-Z map book located during the Robert Napper murder investigation. The Metropolitan Police Service (‘the MPS’) refused to provide the information by applying the exemption to disclosure in section 30(1) and section 40(2) and (3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS correctly applied the exemption at section 30(1) and the public interest favours withholding the information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50503169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528898

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) regarding the basis upon which remaining papers concerning the case of the – ‘Shrewsbury 24’ were retained by the Cabinet Office rather than transferred to The National Archives. The MoJ provided the complainant with the majority of information requested but withheld some material on the basis of section 23(1) (security bodies); section 35(1)(a) (government policy); section 35(1)(b) (Ministerial communications); section 38(1)(b) (health and safety); section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and section 40(2) (personal data). The complainant disputed the application of all of the exemptions with the exception of sections 23(1) and 40(2). The Commissioner has concluded that the section 42(1) has been correctly applied and the public interest favours maintaining that exemption. However, although he has found that section 35(1)(a) is engaged, he has concluded that the public interest favours disclosing the information withheld under this exemption. The Commissioner has also concluded that sections 35(1)(b) and 38(1)(b) are not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with the information previously withheld on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b). Provide the complainant with the information previously withheld on the basis of section 38(1)(b).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50501793

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528904

The complainant has requested information about drugs tests carried out on members of the Household Cavalry Regiment and the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment. The Ministry of Defence (MoD?) made a partial disclosure but refused to provide the remainder citing section 40(2) (Unfair disclosure of personal data) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoD is entitled to rely on section 40(2) in the circumstances of this case. No steps are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50507241

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528902

The complainant has requested the complaints handling manual and standard phrases recommended for use by complaints handlers at Her Majesty’s Court Service. After a protracted delay, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ?) provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing section 31(1)(c) (prejudice to the administration of justice), section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and section 40(2) (unfair disclosure of personal data) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this position at internal review. It also initially relied on section 41 (information provided in confidence) but withdrew this argument during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ is entitled to rely on the exemptions it has cited as a basis for withholding most of the requested information. However, it is not entitled to rely on any of the exemptions it has cited in relation to some of the withheld information listed in a Confidential Annex to this Notice. Also, in failing to provide an adequate response within 20 working days, the MoJ contravened the requirements of sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498837

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528903

The complainant made a request to the Marine Management Organisation for the scrutiny of the European Commission (EC) of its data reporting systems, including copies of any relevant reports and responses to reports. The MMO applied regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) and 12(4)(d) (unfinished documents) to documents it believed fell within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MMO has breached regulation 14(3)(a) of the EIR by not issuing a refusal notice stating that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request and citing the exception contained in regulation 12(4)(a) to the entirety of the request. The Commissioner does not require the MMO to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0513087

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528896

The complainant has requested communications between senior staff at Monitor with representatives of McKinsey and Co. and the Department of Health in relation to Regulations under section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act. Monitor confirmed that some of the requested information was held, amounting to 4 documents, all of which were being withheld on the basis of section 36(2) and, in one case, section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Monitor has correctly withheld the correspondence it received from the DoH under section 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (c) but the public interest in disclosure outweighs that in maintaining the exemptions in relation to the three – sector reports-?. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the three sector reports dated 15 January 2013, 15 February 2013 and 20 March 2013, with appropriate redactions for personal data under section 40(2) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50499289

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528906

The complainant has requested information about an MSc research project: the names of the student and supervisor, details of the project and a copy of the published paper. The London School of Economics (LSE) refused to disclose the requested information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. Following an internal review, the LSE also cited section 40(3) (contravenes any of the data protection principles or likely to cause damage or distress) and the condition in section 40(4) (exempt from subject access right). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt under section 40(2) by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50506169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528895

The complainant has requested information from the Legal Ombudsman about the number of cases in which the Ombudsman agreed with the recommendation of its investigator and the number it disagreed. The Legal Ombudsman applied section 12 to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Legal Ombudsman has correctly applied section 12 to the complainant’s request and he does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50510686

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528893

The complainant has requested a copy of the Liverpool Direct Limited (‘LDL’) procurement catalogue for goods and services purchased by Liverpool City Council (‘the council’) and the service contracts under taken by LDL for such goods and services. The council initially applied the exemptions at section 41 and 43 of the FOIA to the procurement catalogue and stated that it does not hold copies of the service contracts. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council provided a copy of the procurement catalogue but maintained it did not hold the service contracts. The complainant was not satisfied that the council had provided all information held within the scope of the request. The council has not responded appropriately to the Commissioner’s enquiries and therefore is not in a position to draw a conclusion in this case. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response to the complainant in respect of both the procurement catalogue and the service contracts between LDL and the council specifically in relation to the information the council holds rather than the information LDL holds.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498386

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528894

The complainant complained that correspondence he had with the public authority was not a ‘new information request’ rather it was clarification of a previous request and that it should not have been dealt with as such. The Commissioner finds that the correspondence was correctly dealt with as a ‘new information request’. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50503531

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.528901

ICO The complainant requested the current rank and role of a named individual including possible roles as a support officer or probationer. Dyfed Powys Police (DPP) refused to confirm or deny if it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner’s decision is that DPP applied section 40(5) correctly and is not therefore required to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0087 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50402281

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 40(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.529291

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50265092

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.531835

ICO On 06/01/05 the complainant requested HMP Long Lartin staff notices. The public authority responded on 17/03/05 by refusing this request because the cost of extracting information would exceed the fees limit detailed by the Act. The complainant later refocused the request and following the intervention by this office the information was provided on 15/08/05. However, both the original and the refocused request were not dealt with within the 20 day time limit, and the refusal notice did not provide details of the public authority’s complaints procedure or the right to complain to the Information Commissioner. As the information was later provided no steps were identified in the Decision Notice.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50073121

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.533270

ICO The complainant requested access to all of the documents held by the Office of Government Commerce with regard to the ministerial direction issued by the Secretary of State for Defence to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence on 30 July 2003, which concerned the order of 20 Hawk jet trainer aircraft. The complainant was provided with a redacted letter from the OGC Chief Executive to the Deputy Prime Minister dated 11 July 2003 (the July letter). The public authority refused to disclose the withheld parts of this letter, initially citing sections 35 and 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and later claiming sections 26 and 29. After a careful evaluation of the requested information, the submissions of the parties and the relevant provisions of the Act, the Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has not properly applied sections 26 and 35 of the Act. With regard to sections 29 and 43, the Commissioner found that the OGC had correctly applied the exemptions to parts of the information, but that it was in the public interest to partially disclose other parts of the withheld information. The Commissioner has therefore ordered the OGC to disclose to the Complainant a version of the July letter with fewer redactions than applied in the version already disclosed. The Commissioner has also found that the public authority had breached section 17(1) of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2008/0068) has been withdrawn.
FOI 29: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50093000

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532690

ICO The complainant requested information from the Compensation Agency relating to a claim for criminal injury compensation by a certain individual. The Compensation Agency refused to disclose this information, citing section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data of third parties). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Compensation Agency has correctly applied section 40(2) (by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i) to the requested information. Therefore the Commissioner orders no steps to be taken. The Commissioner also finds that the Compensation Agency breached section 17(1) of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0159 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50440131

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.529607

ICO The complainant, who worked for the Council, applied for two internal vacancies, unsuccessfully. He requested some information about the recruitment process, including copies of the application forms submitted by the other applicants, suitably redacted as necessary. The Council refused the request for the application forms, on the grounds that the exemption at section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act applied. The Commissioner decided that the exemption at section 40(2) applied in respect of some of the application form information, but that it did not justify withholding the information in its entirety. He considered that some information about applicants’ experience and qualifications could be provided in an anonymised form, without breaching their rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner directed the Council to provide this information to the complainant, either by redacting the application forms so that all information from which a candidate could be identified was removed or by supplying brief summaries of applicants’ experience and qualifications.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50184888

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.531920

ICO The complainant requested information on payments, together with copies of invoices, relating to a large bill settled by Chelmsford Prison between September 2003 and March 2004. It was alleged that the Home Office had not provided all the information. The Home Office replied stating that it held no further information than that already provided in response to a previous, similar request made by the complainant. Following the ICO’s investigation, the Home Office provided copies of the invoices and the Commissioner is satisfied with the assurance that there is no further information available. However, a breach of the Act has occurred because the response was received outside the 20 working day limit.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50069251

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.533269

ICO The complainant asked how and why given the Code of Conduct in place at the time, a serving Dyfed-Powys Police Officer could allegedly be found to be trespassing into his home, and allegedly conspiring in a theft of his personal belongings. He also wanted to know under what authority a named DPP employee had issued instructions to a police constable to allegedly break the law. Dyfed Powys Police (DPP) refused to either confirm or deny whether it held any relevant information citing section 30(3), section 40(5)(a) and 40(5)(b)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner’s decision is that DPP has correctly relied on section 30(3) and section 40(5)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner orders no steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50461619

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.530070

ICO The complainant requested information about the use of council tax funds in the area of household waste and the use of plastic cups within the council premises. It was alleged that information was withheld and that the requests were not responded to within 20 working days. Although the Commissioner is satisfied that the response was outside the statutory time limit but that all relevant information held by council was provided, the response was outside the statutory limit. The Decision Notice therefore does not identify any steps. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50074785

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.533274

ICO The complainant made three associated requests to Rochdale Borough Council (the ‘Council’) during July and August 2011. Whilst receipt of each of the requests was acknowledged by the Council, no substantive responses have been provided to the complainant for any of the three requests. The Information Commissioner’s decision is the Council did not deal with the three requests for information in accordance with the FOIA. The Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response to the requests within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Information Commissioner requires the public authority to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held in respect of each of the three requests, to comply with section 1(1)(a) and if information is held in respect of each request, either provide the information to comply with section 1(1)(b), or withhold the information by issuing a valid refusal notice(s) under section 17(1) of FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Uph

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50443026

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.529522

ICO The complainant requested information from Sheffield City Council connected to health initiatives. The council failed to respond to the requests within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50431025

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.529666

ICO On 14/02/05 the complainant requested statistical information on the number and types of complaints at HMP Long Lartin. This information was provided on 08/06/05, exceeding the 20 day time limit.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50088259

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.533273

ICO The complainant submitted a request to Cambridgeshire Constabulary (the Constabulary) for the name and address of the partner of the firm of solicitors who had accompanied / acted for individuals who may have been interviewed in relation to a particular incident. The Constabulary refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information on the basis of section 40(5) of FOIA (the personal data exemption) and section 30(3) of FOIA (the investigations exemption). The Commissioner is satisfied that the Constabulary are entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information on the basis of section 40(5).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498047

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.528543

ICO The complainants requested the Council to release the names and contact details of all staff at the Council, including the department in which they work and their head of department. The Council considered the request and refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 31, 36 and 40 of the Act. The Commissioner first considered the Council’s application of section 36 of the Act. He concluded that the disclosure of the names and contact details of all staff would, or would be likely to, prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. He also concluded that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. In respect of the department in which each member of staff works, the Commissioner reached the decision that this information becomes meaningless without the name of each staff member to which it relates. As he concluded that the names of staff should not be disclosed, he decided not to consider this aspect of the complainants’ request any further. Regarding the name of head of each department, the Commissioner decided that section 31 of the Act did not apply. Concerning the Council’s application of section 40, the Commissioner concluded that the name of head of each department is personal data. However, he reached the view that disclosure would not contravene the Data Protection Act and therefore that this information should be released to the complainants within 35 days of this Notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50125204

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532653

ICO A monetary penalty notice has been served to North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust, after several faxes containing sensitive personal data were sent to a member of the public in error.

Citations:

[2013] UKICO 2013-11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.528378

ICO The complainant requested information about the expenses claimed by the Chief Executive and the Chief Technical Officer for the financial year 2009/2010. The Council of the Isles of Scilly refused to comply with the request as it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly refused the request under section 12 as compliance would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50425195

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.529608

The complainant requested information relating to correspondence about Royal Mail’s refusal to use a particular theme for an issue of stamps relating to the British soldiers killed in Iraq. Royal Mail refused to disclose the information and relied on the exemptions at section 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii). The Commissioner found that Royal Mail was correct in the application of the exemptions but that the public interest test favoured disclosure of some of the information. Therefore the Commissioner directs Royal Mail to disclose this part of the withheld information to the complainant. The Commissioner also recorded breaches of sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50300318

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.531899

ICO The complainant requested a series of correspondence relating to a proposed development in Llanelli town centre (1986-1993). The public authority disclosed some of the information in response to the request and informed the complainant that it did not hold the rest. The complainant complained to the Information Commissioner about the length of time it took the public to respond to his request and that the public authority did hold the outstanding information. The Commissioner has decided that the public authority failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) within 20 working days and therefore it breached section 10(1) of the Act. The Commissioner however unable to conclude from the evidence obtained from the complainant that the public authority does hold the information in question. As the public authority has now complied with section 1(1)(a) the Commissioner has not ordered any remedial steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50086115

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.533488

ICO The complainant requested a copy of CCTV footage held by Middlesbrough Council). The council initially indicated that the complainant could inspect the information by appointment. It subsequently said that the information could not be made available because it was exempt under an exemption relating to personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly applied the exemption relating to personal information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50413761

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.531189

Information Notice – Leisure centre employee prosecuted for unlawfully obtaining health information of over 2,000 people
A former manager of a health service based at a council-run leisure centre in Southampton has been prosecuted by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for unlawfully obtaining sensitive medical information relating to over 2,000 people.
Paul Hedges took the information hoping to use the data for a new fitness company he was setting up. He was prosecuted under section 55 of the Data Protection Act at West Hampshire Magistrates Court yesterday and fined andpound;3,000 and ordered to pay a andpound;15 victim surcharge and andpound;1,376 prosecution costs.
Mr Hedges, who previously worked as a Community Health Promotions Manager based at Bitterne Leisure Centre, sent the information to his personal email account on 28 April 2011 after being told that he was being made redundant. The 42 year-old had previously been responsible for managing the council’s Active Options GP referral service, where patients would be referred by their GP or other health professional to attend fitness sessions, for a range of conditions including obesity, diabetes, arthritis, and cardiac and mild mental health issues.
The information included sensitive medical details relating to 2,471 patients. The council became aware of their former employee’s actions when they received complaints about patients being approached by Mr Hedges; who had since set up a similar service using the Active Options name and branding.
Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, said:
‘People have a right to privacy and the ICO works to maintain that right.
‘Nobody expects that their health records will be taken and used in this way. Mr Hedges had been told by Southampton Council about the need to keep patients’ details confidential, but he decided to break the law.
‘This case shows why there is a need for tough penalties to enforce the Data Protection Act. At very least, behaviour of this kind should be recognised as a ‘recordable offence’ which it isn’t now. For the most serious cases the current ‘fine only’ regime will not deter and other options including the threat of prison should be available. The necessary legislation for this is already on the statue book but needs to be activated.
‘The government must ensure that criminals do not see committing data theft as a victimless crime and worth the risk.’

Citations:

[2013] UKICO 2013-40

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.528276

ICO On 18 June 2005 the complainant requested information from the Health and Safety Executive Northern Ireland (The ‘HSENI’) in relation his accident at work. The HSENI withheld the information on the basis that it is exempt under section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is environmental information and so falls to be considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the ‘EIR’). However, the Commissioner is satisfied that all of the requested information is excepted from disclosure under regulation 5(3) of the EIR because it comprises the personal information of the complainant.
EIR 5: Not upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50106658

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532786

ICO The complainant has requested information about the public authority’s processes for dealing with complaints. The public authority advised that the information was already available to him and provided links to the relevant documentation, thereby stating that the information was exempt by virtue of section 21 of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority responded properly to the request and he does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50435646

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.529516

ICO A monetary penalty notice for pounds 325,000 has been served on Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust following the discovery of highly sensitive personal data belonging to tens of thousands of patients and staff ‘including some relating to HIV and Genito Urinary Medicine patients’ on hard drives sold on an Internet auction site in October and November 2010.

Citations:

[2012] UKICO 2012-16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.529547

The complainant requested to know how many travel warrants were drawn and used by a specific MP between the end of 2002 and the end of 2004. The House of Commons withheld the information on the basis that it was exempt under section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner found that the requested information is personal information which can be disclosed without contravening any of the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 and, consequently, that the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the Act does not apply. Therefore the Commissioner’s decision is that the House has breached section 1(1) of the Act in that it incorrectly withheld the requested information on the basis that it was exempt under section 40(2). information on the basis that it was exempt under section 40(2). This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50090141

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.533558

The complainant requested information held in relation to the public authority’s alcohol policy. The Commissioner decided that one element of the request was not a valid request for recorded information under the Act. In relation to the remaining element of the request, the Commissioner found that the public authority did not hold the information. Whilst the public authority’s response to the complainant had not explicitly stated that the information was not held, the Commissioner does not now require the public authority to issue such a response, especially in light of his finding that the information is not held. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2008/0007 allowed.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50111015

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532467

The complainant requested information regarding records kept by the Harvey GP Practice (the practice). For purposes of this notice the senior partner is named as the relevant public authority. The practice refused the request under s14 FOIA as it was considered vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and that s14 was applied correctly. The practice is therefore not obliged to comply with the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50480916

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.527355

The complainant requested details of the BBC’s financial agreements with both Graham Norton and Malcolm Young. The BBC refused to disclose this information on the basis that it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. Having considered the circumstances of this case the Commissioner has concluded that the BBC misapplied the Schedule I derogation and that this information falls within the Act. However, the Commissioner has concluded that details of Mr Norton’s agreement are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40 of the Act. Furthermore, the Commissioner has also concluded that details of Mr Young’s agreement with the BBC are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40, the only exception being the salary band within which Mr Young’s salary fell.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50070465

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532572

The complainant requested details of payments made by the BBC to a range of personalities, actors, journalists and broadcasters. The BBC refused to provide the information on the basis that the information was held for the purposes of journalism, art and literature. Having considered the purposes for which this information is held, the Commissioner has concluded that the requested information was not held for the dominant purposes of journalism, art and literature and therefore the request falls within the scope of the Act. Therefore the Commissioner has decided that in responding to the request the BBC failed to comply with its obligations under section 1(1). Also, in failing to provide the complainant with a refusal notice the Commissioner has decided that the BBC breached section 17(1) of the Act. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 40(2) of the Act.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50150782

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532577

The complainant requested the total amount of money Croydon Police has spent in each of the last three years on paying informants. The public authority refused the request, citing subsections within section 41 (information provided in confidence), section 30 (criminal investigations), section 31 (law enforcement) and section 38 (health and safety). Following an internal review, the public authority overturned the use of section 41 and section 31 and instead specifically cited section 30(2)(b) (obtaining of information from confidential sources) and section 38(1)(a) and (b) (endangering the physical or mental health of any individual or the safety of any individual). The Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 30(2)(a)(i) and (b) is engaged but that the public authority concluded incorrectly that the public interest favoured the maintenance of this exemption. The Commissioner also finds that the exemption provided by section 38(1)(a) and (b) is not engaged. The public authority is required to disclose the information showing the total amount of money spent by Croydon Police on informants in each of the last three years prior to the request. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0006 allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50227776

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532437

The complainant requested the amount the BBC had paid for the rights to cover the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin. The BBC refused to provide this information on the basis that it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. Having considered the circumstances of this case the Commissioner has concluded that the BBC has misapplied the Schedule 1 derogation and that this information falls within the Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation the BBC argued, without prejudice to its position on the derogation that the requested information was exempt on the basis of section 43 of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43 and has therefore ordered the BBC to disclose both the amount it paid for the rights to cover the Turin Olympics and also the total production costs the BBC incurred in producing its coverage of the games.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50107765

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532466

The complainant requested correspondence between Urban Splash and the Council, as well as HMRC and the Council, on the issue of the ‘shell test’ and VAT in relation to the development of Park Hill. The Council refused to supply the information claiming that it was exempt under section 43 of the Act, in that the Council and Urban Splash’s commercial interests would be affected by its release. After the intervention of the Commissioner, the Council agreed that much of the information could be released and agreed to reassess the information and redact the information that it would be prejudicial to release. The Commissioner is satisfied with the Council’s redactions and believes that the remaining information engages the exemption. He is also satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the remaining information to be released. Therefore, the Commissioner requires that the Council release the information to the complainant after making the agreed redactions.
FOI 43: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50121245

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532494

On the 19 October 2005 the complainant requested information from a database of the Clearing house of the Ministry of Justice (‘MOJ’). The MOJ originally refused the information under section 36(2)(b) and (c), but during the Commissioner’s investigation changed their reliance to section 12 of the Act whilst informing the complainant of this. The Commissioner found the MOJ in breach of section 17(5) of the Act for the late application of section 12, and s16(1) for failure to offer advice and assistance but considers the MOJ correctly applied section 12(1) of the Act to the request. He ordered the MOJ to provide appropriate advice and assistance as required by section 16(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50102962

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532438

The complainant asked the BBC how much it cost to produce the show ‘Ask the Family’. The BBC refused to provide the information on the basis that it was not a public authority in relation to this request because the information was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature. Having considered the purposes for which this information is held, the Commissioner has concluded that the information was not held for the dominant purpose of journalism, art of literature and therefore the request falls within the scope of the Act. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 43 of the Act.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50072937

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532464

The complainant sought access to any documentation relating to the case of Dr David Kelly that had been considered by the BBC Board of Governors. The BBC identified four documents falling within the ambit of that request. Two of those documents were minutes of meetings of the Board of Governors, which were subsequently released to the complainant: the Commissioner considered that one sentence redacted from one of those sets of minutes had been correctly withheld under section 40 of the Act. The other two documents were papers prepared for the first of those two meetings. The BBC took the view that both of these papers were covered by the derogation and therefore outside the terms of the Act: the Commissioner accepted that view. However, he criticised the BBC for breaching sections 10 and 17 of the Act by not informing the complainant, within the timescale specified, either that information was being withheld from the set of minutes or of the relevant exemption concerned.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50072320

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532463

On 11 September 2007 the complainant requested from The Commission for Local Administration in England (‘CLAE’) copies of legal guidance provided to it by the Department for Communities and Local Government (the ‘DCLG’), the CLAE’s external auditors and/or the Information Commissioner (the ‘Commissioner’) relating to its handling of requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’), the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the ‘EIR’) and the Data Protection Act 1998 (the ‘DPA’). He also asked ‘what special research have these three bodies conducted in relation to the three information laws specifically for the Commission for Local Administration?’. The CLAE refused the request on 13 September 2007, upholding its decision on internal review on 31 October 2007, stating that it had neither received any information of the type requested, nor had any special research of the type stated been conducted. The CLAE acknowledged that it did hold copies of some of the guidance published by the Commissioner, but applied the exemption in section 21 to this information since it was publicly accessible on the Commissioner’s website. The complainant asked the Commissioner to investigate the handling of his request by CLAE, and in particular its application of the exemption in section 21 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and agrees that, in its handling of this information request, the CLAE has complied with the requirements of the Act in all respects. He agrees that section 21 was applied correctly and therefore does not order any steps to be taken by CLAE. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2008/0039 has been dismissed.
FOI 21: Not upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50177655

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532580

The complainant made an information request to the Ministry of Justice regarding the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the conduct of civil servants. The public authority deemed the request vexatious and relying on section 14 of the Act refused to meet the request. In investigating the MoJ’s handling of the request, the Commissioner also considered the request in the context and background in which it was made. He finds that the public authority’s refusal to comply with the request by virtue of section 14 of the Act was correct. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the public authority breached section 17(5) of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with the refusal notice within 20 working days of his request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50155363

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532439

The complainant requested a range of financial information about the costs incurred in relation to BBC Northern Ireland. The BBC refused to disclose information about salaries of BBC staff on the basis that it was exempt on the basis of section 40. The Commissioner has decided that whilst it would breach the Data Protection Act to disclose the exact salaries of the BBC employees concerned, disclosure of their respective salary bands would not. With regard to the remainder of the requested information, the BBC refused to provide this information on the basis that it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. Having considered the circumstances of this case the Commissioner has concluded that the BBC has misapplied the Schedule 1 derogation and that this information falls within the Act. However, the Commissioner has concluded that some of this information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40 and 43, although some of this information is not exempt from disclosure and should therefore be provided to the complainant.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50085710

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532465

The complainant requested any information held by the public authority as to how a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into targets in London had, as disclosed in a statement made by the President of the United States, been averted as a result of information gathered by the US Central Intelligence Agency. The public authority refused to confirm or deny (NCND) whether it held information falling within the scope of this request and cited the exemptions provided by sections 23(5) (information relating to, or supplied by, security bodies), 24(2) (national security), 27(4)(b) (confidential information obtained from a state other than the UK, an international organisation or an international court), 31(3) (prejudice to law enforcement) and 38(2) (endangerment to health and safety). The Commissioner concludes that none of the exemptions cited by the public authority are engaged for NCND purposes. The public authority is required to provide to the complainant confirmation or denial of whether information falling within the scope of the request is held. Any information that is held should either be disclosed to the complainant or the public authority should issue a refusal notice valid for the purposes of section 17(1). The Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with the requirements of sections 17(1)(c) and 17(3)(a) through its handling of the request. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0008 allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 27 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50178276

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.532436

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT EA – 2012 – 0069 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.517895

The complainant has requested the PHSO to disclose two letters held on his complaint file. The PHSO refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 40 and 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. For section 44 (1)(a) of the FOIA the PHSO cited the statutory prohibition on disclosure created by the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO is entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken in this case
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 44: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50714310

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.617413

The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks on The Department for Education (DfE). The department neither confirmed nor denied whether it held information within scope of the request, relying on the exclusion at section 31(3) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that DfE was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within scope of the first part of the request, but was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the second part of the request.
FOI 31: Complaint partly upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50662658

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.617569

The complainant has requested information from the Education Funding Agency (‘EFA’) relating to the amount of deposit paid for a specific site. As an executive agency of the Department for Education (‘DfE’), the EFA does not constitute a public authority for the purposes of FOIA and so this notice is issued to its parent Department, the DfE. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has incorrectly applied regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial interests) to the amount of deposit paid for the site. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with the monetary figure of the 10% deposit paid for the Bowring site. The DfE 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.
EIR 12(5)(e): Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50679449

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.602389