Tag: Information

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 8 Sep 2016

The complainant requested from the Education Funding Agency (‘EFA’) information about the redevelopment of Chagford Primary School (‘CPS’). The EFA provided some information but withheld other information under sections 40(2) and 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the EFA correctly applied section 43(2) to the information that it withheld, that it complied with section 1, as it holds no further information falling within the scope of complainant’s request, and that it complied with section 10(1), by responding promptly to the request. However, she has decided that the EFA breached section 10(3), by taking more than a reasonable time to carry out the public interest test in relation to section 43(2), and breached section 17(1), by failing to state within 20 working days of receipt of the request that it was applying section 40(2) to some information. The Commissioner does not require the EFA to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. 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.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Partly upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 43: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50613094

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.571066

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 28 Mar 2018

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

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 21 Nov 2017

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

Land Registry FAC0061805: ICO 16 May 2005

ICO (Decision Notice) Complainant requested specific information in the form of a particular registered legal charge. The Land Registry advised the complainant that the requested information was not held. The Decision Notice found that the Land Registry were not in breach of s.1.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FAC0061805

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.533211

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 25 Oct 2016

The complainant requested from the Department for Education a copy of the latest version of the Small Schools Task Force’s report into Universal Infant Free School Meals in small schools. The Department for Education withheld the report under section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education has not successfully engaged section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the latest version of the Small Schools Task Force report into Universal Infant Free School Meals in small schools.
FOI 36: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50615603

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.572857

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 10 Jul 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to the ‘Trojan Horse’ case. The DfE disclosed the number of teachers and governors that have faced conduct panel hearings but refused to disclose the legal costs incurred under section 36(2)(c) and 43 of the FOIA. It also refused to disclose details of any claims for compensation, damages and losses under section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA is engaged, but the public interest in favour of maintaining this exemption is outweighed by the public interest in favour of disclosure. With regards to section 43 of the FOIA, the Commissioner’s decision is that this exemption is not engaged.
FOI 43: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 36(2)(c): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50705463

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.621311

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 20 Oct 2016

The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (DfE) relating to the proposal of the Weald of Kent Grammar School (Weald of Kent) for the development of an annexe in Sevenoaks. The complaint to the Commissioner concerns the DfE’s refusal to comply with two requests. The Commissioner has initially had to decide how the requests under consideration should be interpreted and has found that they only cover the business information submitted to the DfE by the Weald of Kent. The DfE considered that this fell within the ‘prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs’ exemption to disclosure in section 36(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner has determined the exemption is engaged but concluded that on balance the public interest favours disclosure. She therefore requires the DfE to disclose the requested information.
FOI 36: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50613829

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.572856

New Forest National Park Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Jul 2010

On 29 June 2009, the complainant wrote to New Forest National Park Authority (NPA) with four questions about its decision not to take planning enforcement action against the complainant’s neighbour. The complainant was unhappy with NPA’s response to questions one and four and, following an internal review by NPA, complained to the Commissioner. During the Commissioner’s investigation and following the decision of the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) to dismiss the complainant’s appeal against a previous Decision Notice. NPA stated that it considered the request to be manifestly unreasonable and that it should have applied the exception to disclosure provided by regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner considered it appropriate to allow the late application of the exception and agreed that the request was manifestly unreasonable and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner found procedural breaches in the way in which NPA handled the request but requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2010/0143 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FER0285305

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.531563

New Forest National Park Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Oct 2012

The complainant has requested a copy of a map, the New Forest National Park Authority’s 2008 back up grazing plan. The New Forest National Park Authority refused to disclose the information because the information is incomplete, under the exception provided at regulation 12(4)(d) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), and also because disclosure would adversely affect the interests of the persons supplying the information, under regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the New Forest National Park Authority has correctly refused the requested information under the provisions of regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0244 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0446596

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.529942

New Forest National Park Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Feb 2012

The complainant has requested copies of a legal file on a criminal prosecution which was begun by the New Forest National Park Authority against a company. The NFPNA stated that the information was exempt under Regulations 12(5)(b) (course of justice), 13, (personal data) and 12(4)(e) (internal communications). The Commissioner’s decision is that New Forest National Park Authority has correctly applied the exceptions in Regulation 12(5)(b) and regulation 13 to the information. Having found this he has not gone on to consider the application or Regulation 12(4)(e).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0400054

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.529213

Health and Safety Executive (Other): ICO 30 Jan 2018

The complainant has requested a copy of an independent investigation report by Edif ERA (a trading name of ERA Technology Ltd) and the review carried out by a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) specialist electrical inspector in relation to the cause of an accident involving the complainant. HSE withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 41 of the FOIA (information provided in confidence) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that HSE has correctly applied section 41 of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 41: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50687887

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.617365

Health and Safety Executive (Other): ICO 2 May 2018

The complainant has requested a copy of the internal investigation report carried out by Total into the blowout at the Elgin 4 Well Head in 2012. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health and Safety Executive does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. However, in failing to inform the complainant within 20 working days that it required further time to consider the request, it breached Regulation 7(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 7: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0714017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.617801

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health): ICO 17 Jul 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to complaints made against One Medical Group. NHS England refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England was correct to apply section 12 FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner also considers that NHS England provided the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50719756

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.621352

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health): ICO 9 Jul 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation into the source of the figure for excess deaths as the result of patients being admitted to hospitals at weekends used by the Secretary of Health (now Secretary for Health and Social Care) in a speech on 16 July 2015. NHS England refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has correctly applied section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any action in this matter.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50712824

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.621351

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health): ICO 25 Jun 2018

The complainant has made a two part request for information relating to a complaint he submitted to NHS England, and information relating to its decision not to accept his reason for not attending any of the medical practices offered to him. NHS England withheld all the information, citing the exemption under section 40(1) (personal information) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The complainant considers NHS England’s reasons for withholding the requested information are neither valid nor fair. The complainant is also concerned that NHS England has not complied with its obligations under section 1(1), section 10(1) and section 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has complied with its obligations under section 1(1), section 10(1) and section 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of the FOIA but NHS England should have cited section 40(5)(a) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 17: Complaint not upheld FOI 10: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50681495

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.621266

Sussex Police (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Oct 2007

IPO The complainant made five information requests to the public authority. One file was ultimately deemed to be exempt under Section 40(1) by the public authority and it claimed not to hold the other information. The Commissioner investigated whether he agreed with the use of the Section 40(1) exemption regarding this request, and then considered whether it was the most applicable exemption for all of the requested pieces of information. He has concluded that the section 40(1) exemption did or would have applied to all of the information. He further concluded that the public authority was not in fact obliged to comply with 1(1)(a) in this regard by virtue of section 40(5). In failing to inform the complainant that section 40(5) applied the public authority breached section 17(1) of the Act. However the Commissioner has not ordered any remedial steps in the light of the contents of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50162201

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.533105

Commission for Equality and Human Rights (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Oct 2007

ICO Central government – The complainant submitted a request for information about the ethnicity of claimants to the Employment Tribunal Service and the outcome of each claimant’s case. The public authority refused the request on the basis that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority did hold some information which fell within the scope of the complainant’s request and by failing to confirm that it held this information it breached section 1 of the Act. However, the Commissioner accepts that to provide this information would have exceeded the appropriate cost limit.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50102436

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.533090

H A Cook and Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland: SIC 26 Nov 2013

On 4 December 2012, Mr Cook asked Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (SCSWIS) for the dates when two named Care Commission Officers were awarded their Regulation of Care Awards. SCSWIS refused the request under section 14(2) of FOISA, on the basis that it was repeated. Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted this.

Citations:

[2013] ScotIC 268 – 2013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.522801

David Willson and Scottish Public Services Ombudsman: SIC 26 Nov 2013

On 6 August 2013, Mr Willson asked the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (the SPSO) to provide the information it had used to reach certain conclusions in relation to a complaint it had investigated, and for correspondence with the Minister for Transport. The SPSO withheld all information under section 26(a) of FOISA, and upheld this decision after review. Mr Willson requested and received information which was his own personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA), but believed that some information had not been provided. He applied to the Commissioner for a decision on how his request had been dealt with under FOISA.
The Commissioner found that the information held by the SPSO in relation to Mr Willson’s request was exempt from disclosure under section 26(a) of FOISA.

Citations:

[2013] ScotIC 269 – 2013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.522797

Chhabra v West London Mental Health NHS: QBD 1 Jun 2012

The claimant, a consultant forensic psychiatrist sought to restrain the defendants from going ahead with disciplinary proceedings as to alleged breaches of patient confidentiality.
Held: The application succeeded. The complaint was properly as to misconduct, and not capacity, and the proposed method of investigation was inappropriate.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1735 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Sarkar v West London Mental Health NHS Trust CA 19-Mar-2010
The doctor had been summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. He now appealed against the EAT’s reversal of the finding of unfair dismissal. The original procedure adopted was appropriate to a lesser level of misconduct, but the employer had later . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Chhabra CA 25-Jan-2013
The Trust appealed against a decision that its procedures in seeking to discipline the respondent consultant forensic psychiatrist were wrongly applied and the associated injunction.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The conduct complained of was of . .
At first instance – West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Chhabra SC 18-Dec-2013
The trust sought to begin disciplinary proceedings against the claimant, a consultant forensic psychologist alleging gross misconduct. She was said to have left confidential patient records on a train.
Held: Gross misconduct should be conduct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Health Professions, Employment

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461888

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 22 Mar 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to the roll out schedule of Universal Credit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take to issue a substantive response to the complainant under the Act by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice. 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 10: Upheld FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50637830

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.583715

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 24 Jan 2017

The complainant requested copies of emails sent from the email account of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The Department for Work and Pensions denied holding information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. DWP is not required to take any remedial steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50624477

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.579754

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 12 Feb 2018

The complainant made a request for information relating to a fire that occurred at a site in Staffordshire. The Environment Agency provided the complainant with some information but withheld some information under regulation 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e), 12(5)(f) and 13 EIR. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the application of exceptions to four particular pieces of withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Environment Agency has correctly applied regulation 13 EIR to the fours documents being withheld. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
EIR 13: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0696714

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.617464

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 7 Mar 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to flood defences between the Environment Agency (EA) and other authorities from 1 January 2015 onwards. The EA refused to disclose the requested information citing regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation some information was disclosed to the complainant. With regards to the remaining withheld information, the Commissioner is satisfied that regulation 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) of the EIR apply and that the public interest rests in maintaining these exceptions. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. The Commissioner has however recorded a breach of regulations 14(2) and 11 of the EIR in this case, as the EA failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days and failed to respond to the complainant’s request for an internal review within 40 working days.
EIR 12(4)(e): Not upheld EIR 12(4)(d): Not upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld EIR 11: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FER0645982

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.583731

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 29 Nov 2016

The complainant has requested information relating to the improvements agreed for the Redcliffe Bay Petroleum Storage Depot (the depot). The Environment Agency (EA) released some information but refused to disclose the majority of information citing regulations 12(5)(a) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner has decided that regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR applies in this case. However, the Commissioner has decided that she has received insufficient evidence from the EA to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR applies so she requires the EA to disclose the requested information withheld under this exception.
EIR 12(5)(a): Not upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FER0605855

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.572971

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 7 Mar 2018

The complainant has requested the Environment Agency (EA) to disclose a copy of the Environment Risk Assessment (ERA) for the Redcliffe Bay Petroleum Storage Depot (RBPSD). The EA responded advising the complainant that it does not hold the requested information and cited regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the EA does not hold the requested information and is therefore entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR in this case. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0718339

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.617586

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 25 Oct 2016

The complainant requested a list of all current team email addresses and the associated team title and physical location of the team to which each email address belongs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12 of the FOIA. She also finds that DWP failed to provide sufficient advice and assistance as required by section 16 of the FOIA. However she does not require any remedial steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50624111

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.572860

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 9 Jan 2017

The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for information related to the implementation of the Universal Credit Programme. DWP confirmed that it holds information relevant to the request. It advised the complainant on two occasions that it required further time to consider the public interest test. To date, DWP has failed to provide the complainant with a substantive response. By failing to do so, the Commissioner has concluded that DWP breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires DWP to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a substantive response to their information request. If DWP decides to withhold any information then the complainant should be provided with a refusal notice giving a full explanation as to why the information will not be disclosed, including details of any public interest consideration.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50654111

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.579755

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 14 Feb 2018

The complainant has requested information from the Environment Agency (EA) relating to the management of flood risk, water flows and water abstraction near to his property. The EA refused these requests, citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, on the basis that the requests are vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR in this case. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 11: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0699751

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.617465

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 21 May 2018

The complainant has requested information from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) about various matters. DWP has relied on section 12 – costs of compliance exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse this request. She notes that the response to the request was provided outside of the statutory 20 day time limit and accordingly DWP has breached section 10 FOIA. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any further steps.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50675255

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.617782

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 18 Dec 2017

The complainant has requested information on the successful candidates for a position he applied for. The Environment Agency (EA) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50699455

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.602494

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 27 Jun 2017

The complainant has requested the Environment Agency (EA) to disclose the name of the successful candidate for a position he applied for. The EA refused to disclose this information citing section 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA has acted appropriately by refusing to disclose the requested information under section 40 of the FOIA. As a result the Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50683983

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.593753

Brighton and Hove City Council (Local Government): ICO 2 Jul 2018

The complainant has requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council (the Council) regarding the amount that has been paid by a specified legal entity to the Council, in major works costs, service charges and ground rent. In addition, the complainant requested the reasons behind refusal of a previous information request. The Council provided the information in relation to the first part of the request, and stated that it does not hold further information in relation to the second part of the request. However the complainant considers that further information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request and therefore has complied with its duties under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner found that the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA due to the time it took to respond to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50712995

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.621298

Brighton and Hove City Council (Local Government): ICO 20 Jul 2018

The complainant submitted a request to Brighton and Hove City Council (the Council) for information it held about the due diligence it had undertaken in relation to the awarding of a heating services contract. The Council sought to withhold the requested information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exemption and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, the Council breached section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 43: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50721575

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.621299

Brighton and Hove City Council (Local Government): ICO 24 Apr 2018

The complainant has requested information regarding proposals for cladding of buildings involving flammable materials that was held at the time of the Grenfell Tower disaster. Brighton and Hove City Council provided information in response to the request however the complainant considered that further information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision, is that on the balance of probabilities Brighton and Hove City Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request and therefore has complied with its duties under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50706375

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.617705

Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission Ex Parte Granada Television Ltd: CA 16 Dec 1994

The Broadasting Complaints Commission had been established to determine questions of privacy, and the courts should be slow to intervene. The right of privacy of an individual had not been lost by past publicity. That privacy had been infringed by the broadcast complained of, and the commissions decision was not unreasonable. The privacy of bereaved families was infringed by photographs even if the family was otherwise notorious.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Feb-1995, Ind Summary 20-Feb-1995, Times 16-Dec-1994, [1995] EMLR 16

Statutes:

Broadcasting Act 1990 143

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex Parte Granada Television Ltd QBD 31-May-1993
The Commission had not been unreasonable in taking the view that a broadcast had infringed the privacy of the subject of the complaint. Judicial Review was not available against BBC for infringement of privacy. . .

Cited by:

Cited – McKennitt and others v Ash and Another QBD 21-Dec-2005
The claimant sought to restrain publication by the defendant of a book recounting very personal events in her life. She claimed privacy and a right of confidence. The defendant argued that there was a public interest in the disclosures.
Held: . .
Cited – CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another (1) QBD 16-May-2011
A leading footballer had obtained an injunction restraining the defendants from publishing his identity and allegations of sexual misconduct. The claimant said that she had demanded money not to go public.
Held: It had not been suggested that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Media, Judicial Review, Information

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.86221

Regina v Mid Glamorgan Family Health Services Authority, ex parte Martin: CA 7 Sep 1994

A doctor may deny a patient access to his health records if it is in the patient’s best interests to do so. There is no common law right for a patient to see his own medical records, and the Act is not retrospective.

Citations:

Gazette 19-Oct-1994, Independent 07-Sep-1994, Times 16-Aug-1994, [1995] 1 All ER 357

Statutes:

Access to Health Records Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Mid Glamorgan Family Health Services and Another, ex parte Martin QBD 2-Jun-1993
The Access to Health Records Act 1990 did not give retrospective rights of access to records which had been created before it was brought into effect. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd QBD 7-Feb-2006
The trust, operators of Ashworth Secure Hospital sought from the defendant journalist disclosure of the name of their employee who had revealed to the defendant matters about the holding of Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, and in particular medical . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Health, Information

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87336

Regina v Brown: CACD 28 May 1993

A police officer misused his position to access records held on a police computer.
Held: Merely accessing computer data by viewing it was not ‘use’ within the Act, and this particular offence was not established. The word ‘use’ must be given its ordinary meaning, which required something more. The court certified a question of law and refused leave to appeal.

Judges:

Staughton LJ, Hidden and Laws JJ

Citations:

Times 04-Jun-1993

Links:

lip

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1984 5(2)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.86240

Mid Suffolk District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Nov 2013

The complainant requested legal advice which the council sought following complaints to it from residents about the activities of a church. Residents consider that the activities being carried out by the church are in breach of planning restrictions placed on its planning approval. The council confirmed that it had sought legal advice and that it had previously provided the complainant with a summary of that advice but said that the full advice was covered by legal professional privilege and applied Regulation 12(5)(b)(course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(b). The summary of the advice initially provided to the complainant effectively meant that the advice could no longer be considered to be confidential and therefore privilege could no longer be applied and a disclosure of the information could not have had an adverse effect. The council was therefore not correct to apply the exception. The Commissioner has also decided that the council breached Regulation 11(4) in that it did not carry out a review of its decision and provide its response to the complainant within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0494389

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.528899

Care Quality Commission (Health): ICO 9 Nov 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to the Care Quality Commission’s (the CQC) finding and enquiries relating to the security and availability of drugs at Queen’s Hospital, Romford. The CQC has provided some of the information requested, but has explained that it does not hold other information falling within the scope of the request. However, the complainant considers that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CQC does not hold any further information. The Commissioner does not require the CQC to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50683132

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.602378

Northumbria Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 25 Apr 2017

The complainant has requested information about Northumbria Police’s investigation into a murder attempt made on him in 1999, for which nobody has been charged. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and Northumbria Police was entitled to apply section 14 of the FOIA to refuse the request. She also considers that Northumbria Police was not obliged to issue a refusal notice in respect of the request, in accordance with section 17(6) of the FOIA.
FOI 14: Not upheld FOI 17: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50671026

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.583882

Northumbria Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 5 Feb 2018

The complainant requested information about alleged criminal offences arising from a third party’s employment tribunal. Northumbria Police refused to provide the requested information, initially citing section 21 of FOIA, (information reasonably accessible by other means) for part one of the request and 30(2)(a)(i), (criminal investigations and proceedings) for the second part of the request. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, Northumbria Police confirmed it no longer wished to rely on section 30(2)(a)(i) in respect of part two of the request, instead citing section 30(1)(a) of FOIA. The complainant is only concerned with the information withheld under section 30(1)(a). Having considered its application of section 30(1)(a), the Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria Police was entitled to rely on that exemption to withhold the requested information. However, by relying on this exemption which it had not mentioned at or before the internal review, Northumbria Police has breached section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Northumbria Police to take any steps as a result of this notice.
FOI 30: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50708236

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.617520

Cwm Taf Health Board (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant requested copies of reports issued by the District Valuer in connection with the development of two medical centres. The Board refused the request by virtue of sections 41 and 43 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and determined that the information requested constitutes environmental information and the correct access regime is the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Board to reconsider the request under the EIR and either disclose the information requested or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with regulation 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50387879

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.530720

Westminster City Council (Local Government): ICO 4 Jul 2018

The complainant requested copies of Westminster City Council’s Client Affairs policies. The Commissioner’s decision is that Westminster City Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a response which complies with Section 1 of the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50752695

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.621393

Student Loans Company Ltd (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Nov 2008

The complainant made a request to the Student Loans Company Ltd (the ‘SLC’) for a copy of the ‘customer service guide’ for employees of the Smith Lawson and Company collection team. The complainant qualified the initial request by stating that it was a request for any documents, guides or customer service policies that were used by these staff. The SLC initially informed the complainant that it did not hold any information which fell under the scope of his request. After the complainant sought an internal review the SLC confirmed that it did hold some material that fell within the scope of his request, but withheld this information under section 43(2). After investigating this complaint the Commissioner decided that the exemption was not engaged, and as such the requested information should be disclosed. Therefore the Commissioner found that the SLC had acted in breach of section 1(1)(b) in that it had wrongly relied upon section 43(2) to withhold this information. The Commissioner also found that the SLC had not met the requirements of section 10(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2008/0092 part allowed.
FOI 43: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50126264

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.532766

Student Loans Company Ltd (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Feb 2009

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the Student Loans Company on 28 December 2006 for a document entitled CLASS Training Manual. The Company refused to provide this information to the complainant citing the exemption contained at section 43 of the Act relating to commercial interests. The Company’s refusal to provide the information by virtue of the exemption contained at section 43 was investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). A decision notice was issued on 30 July 2008 requiring the Company to disclose the requested information as it concluded that the exemption contained at section 43 had not been correctly engaged in that case. The Company supplied the requested information to the complainant in hard copy format. The complainant highlighted to the Company that at the time of making his request he specified that if held in electronic form the information should be supplied preferably in electronic format. The Company refused to provide the information in electronic format due to issues surrounding copyright and confidentiality. The complainant made a subsequent complaint to the ICO regarding the format in which the information had been provided to him. The Commissioner considers that section 11(1) of the Act has been breached as the complainant specified his preferred format at the time of making his request and the arguments put forward by the Company do not in the Commissioner’s view indicate that it would not be reasonably practicable to provide the information in electronic format.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 11 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50217416

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.531944

Cheshire Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 14 Mar 2017

The complainant has requested copies of the training materials used by Cheshire Constabulary in its Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent (‘WRAP’) training sessions. Cheshire Constabulary refused to disclose this information under the exemptions provided by sections 24(1) (national security), 31(1) (law enforcement) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 24(1) to refuse to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 24: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50633655

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.583704

Cheshire Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 26 Jun 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to the misconduct hearing of a police officer who has been dismissed from Cheshire Constabulary. Cheshire Constabulary refused to provide the information citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that it was correct to do so.
FOI 40(2): Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50656712

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.593740

Tom Gordon and Scottish Ministers: SIC 6 Feb 2012

SIC This decision considers whether the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to an information request made by Mr Gordon

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 024 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451527

Graham Devine and South Lanarkshire Council: SIC 5 Jan 2012

SIC Mr Devine requested from South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) information relating to an incident that had affected his property. The Council responded by providing some information, but withholding other information in terms of section 36(1) of FOISA (as information to which a claim of confidentiality could be maintained in legal proceedings). The Council also gave notice that it did not hold any information in respect of part of Mr Devine’s request. Following a review, as a result of which the Council disclosed some more information, but also relied upon section 38(1)(b) of FOISA for withholding certain personal information, Mr Devine remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, in the course of which Mr Devine confirmed that he was not interested in certain of the withheld personal data, the Commissioner found that the Council had been correct in withholding the remainder of the information under either section 36(1) or section 38(1)(b) of FOISA. He did not require any action by the Council.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 002 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451511

Charity Commission (Local Government (Other)): ICO 22 Feb 2017

The complainant has requested information from the Charity Commission on the split of the Global Warming Policy Foundation into charitable and trading arms. The Charity Commission disclosed some information but relied on the exemptions at section 31, 40, 41 and 42 of the FOIA to withhold other information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31 can only be relied on in respect of some of the information to which it has been applied; similarly sections 41 and 40(2) can only be relied on in respect of some of the information to which they have been applied. Section 42 has been correctly applied to withhold all information it has been applied to. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information which is not protected by any of the exemptions cited as identified in the confidential annex which has been provided to the Charity Commission.
FOI 31: Partly upheld FOI 40: Partly upheld FOI 41: Upheld FOI 42: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50623442

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.579840

Charity Commission (Local Government): ICO 17 Oct 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to the distribution of funds following the dissolution of a charity. The Charity Commission relied on the exemption at section 41 of the FOIA (information provided in confidence) to withhold the information. The Information Commissioner’s (‘the Commissioner’s’) decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied the exemption and she does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 41: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50672594

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.602256

Charity Commission (Local Government (Other)): ICO 22 Aug 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint he made to the Charity Commission about a particular charity. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(f) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 31: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50669628

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.593925

Charity Commission (Local Government (Other)): ICO 12 Jan 2017

The complainant has requested communications relating to a complaint he made to the Charity Commission about a particular charity. The Charity Commission refused to disclose the requested information under section 31(1)(g) with subsection (2)(a), (b), (c), (f) and (g) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(f) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50631941

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.579746

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (Health (Other)): ICO 3 Nov 2016

The complainant has requested a range of information taken from voluntary reports of adverse incidents involving medical devices. The MHRA agreed to disclose some information but considered that model, manufacturer, catalogue, serial and batch numbers, and date of incidences of adverse incidents was exempt on the basis of section 41, 43 and 44 of the FOIA. In addition to this, the MHRA also considered that section 43 applied to the request for reference numbers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has correctly withheld the information request at parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the request on the basis of section 44. However, she does not consider that the MHRA has sufficiently demonstrated that section 43 is engaged in relation to the information requested at part 16 of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information requested at part 16 of the request – MHRA reference numbers for all voluntary reports of adverse incidents received since 1 April 2003.
FOI 43: Upheld FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50616856

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.573001

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (Health (Other)): ICO 22 Nov 2017

The complainant has requested all records associated with the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (‘MHRA’) Reference Number device CA014885. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibition) of the FOIA to the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50697988

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.602425

Sinclair v Information Commissioner, Department of Energy and Climate Change: FTTGRC 8 Nov 2011

FTTGC Environmental Information Regulations – disclosure of information – exception for internal communications – regulation 12(4)(e) – exception where adverse effect on international relations – regulation 12(5)(a) – public interest balance

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT EA – 2011 – 0052 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Environment

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449720

NHS Cambridgeshire (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Aug 2011

ICO On 27 September 2009, the complainant requested that NHS Cambridgeshire should provide her with all the information that it held in relation to her deceased mother. NHS Cambridgeshire . . informed the complainant that it held a care file which was exempt from disclosure under section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. At that time Cambridgeshire Community Services was a provider arm of NHS Cambridgeshire but in April 2010, CCS became a standalone trust. It held the file and therefore responded to the complainant on its own behalf. The complainant argued that the information should have been refused under section 21 of the Act as she believes she should have access to the information under the Access to Health Records Act 1990. The Commissioner finds NHS Cambridgeshire was correct to apply section 41(1). Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0209 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50328160

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.530770