Tag: Information

Carmarthenshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 21 Jun 2017

The complainant has requested correspondence between the owner of a piece of land and the council in relation to a complaint that was made about the conversion of the site to a commercial shooting site without the benefit of planning permission. The council refused to disclose the requested information citing regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied regulation 13 of the EIR in this case. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
EIR 13: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FER0653463

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593739

Department for Education (Central Government) FS50663981: ICO 21 Jun 2017

The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (DfE) for information about the performance of Regional Schools Commissioners against their Key Performance Indicators. The DfE provided the complainant with some of the requested information however refused to disclose the remainder citing section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has determined the exemption is engaged but concluded that on balance the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the data relating to Key Performance Indicator (KPI) 6. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 36: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50663981

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593747

Cambridgeshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 29 Jun 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to roads in Cambridgeshire. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridgeshire County Council has incorrectly applied the exception at regulation 12(5)(c) of the EIR where disclosure would adversely affect intellectual property rights. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested unclassified roads data to the complainant to ensure compliance with the legislation.
EIR 12(5)(c): Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FER0645865

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593736

Cabinet Office (Central Government) – FS50661241: ICO 20 Jun 2017

The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information relating to the ‘shortlisting’ of David Cameron’s resignation honours list. The Cabinet Office argued that the shortlisting process was conducted in Mr Cameron’s personal and political capacity and thus any information generated by this process would not be held by the Cabinet Office for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner accepts that there is a political dimension to the shortlisting process. However, in her view any information generated by this process would also be held for official purposes and therefore if any such recorded information is physically held by the Cabinet Office then such information would be held by the Cabinet Office for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and if so disclose or refuse any information identified.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50661241

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593734

Cabinet Office (Central Government) – FS50651133: ICO 20 Jun 2017

ICO The complainant requested information relating to polling data from the 2014 Scottish independence referendum from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 14(2) of the Act as it considered it was a repeat request. The Cabinet Office’s position was based on a case of mistaken identity with the complainant and a previous requester with a similar name. Once this mistake had been pointed out, the Cabinet Office refused the request under section 35(1)(a) of the Act as the information related to the development of government policy, and the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) of the Act applies, but that the public interest test favours disclosure of the withheld information. The Cabinet Office also breached section 17(1) as it did not apply section 35(1)(a) within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information to the complainant
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 35: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50651133

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593733

Sussex Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 22 May 2017

The complainant has requested information about the deployment of PCSOs in Lewes. Sussex Police failed to respond to this request for information within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in its handling of the request. The information has now been disclosed to the complainant, and so the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50670245

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593718

Ministry of Justice (Central Government): ICO 10 May 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to courts in England and Wales. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the MoJ breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to respond to the request.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50666065

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593698

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health (NHS)) FS50649420: ICO 24 May 2017

The complainant has requested copies of attachments to emails previously disclosed to him beginning with ‘7DS’ NHS England refused to provide the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 36: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50649420

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593703

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health (NHS)) FS50648604: ICO 24 May 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to Deloitte’s work on the costing of 7 day services. NHS England provided some information but refused to provide some of the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(ii), section 36(2)(c) and section 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 36(2)(b)(ii): Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50648604

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593702

Office Of Communications v UK Information Commissioner: ECJ 28 Jul 2011

ECJ Public access to environmental information – Directive 2003/4/EC – Article 4 – Exceptions to the right of access – Request for access involving more than one of the interests protected under Article 4(2) of that directive)

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-71/10, [2012] Env LR 7, [2011] PTSR 1676, [2011] 2 Info LR 1, [2012] 1 CMLR 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Office Of Communications v UK Information Commissioner ECJ 10-Mar-2011
ECJ (Opinion of Advocate General Kokott) Directive 2003/4/EC – Access to environmental information – Exceptions – Public interest in disclosure – Interest served by refusal – Balancing exercise – Cumulation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593109

National Offender Management Service (Decision Notice) FS50199479: ICO 28 Jul 2008

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the compensation payments made to prisoners and former prisoners. The public authority replied that section 43 (commercial interests) was engaged and that it would carry out a public interest determination within a target timeframe. The Commissioner finds that section 17(1)(c) was breached at this point as the public authority failed to inform the complainant why the exemption was engaged. The timeframe was readjusted on two separate occasions before the complainant complained to the Commissioner. It was also extended a further time after the Commissioner set a deadline. The Commissioner finds a delay of over six months in carrying out a public interest determination to be in breach of section 17(3). The Commissioner has also found the public authority in breach of section 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) of the Act. The public authority is required to issue a notice explaining why section 43 is engaged in relation to each part of the request and where it believes the balance of the public interest lies. If the public authority concludes that the balance of the public interest favours disclosing the information or no longer considers the exemption to apply, the information should be provided to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50199479

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.532687

National Offender Management Service (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Nov 2009

The complainant made a request to the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) for any briefings from HM Prison Service to the Prisons Minister concerning the Tasker investigation, dated 2006 and 2007. The public authority stated that it had conducted extensive searches and was unable to confirm the existence of any specific briefings submitted to the Prisons Minister. The Commissioner considered the searches undertaken by the public authority and suggested possible additional areas for enquiry. As a result of this, the public authority has confirmed that it holds information which is relevant to the complainant’s request for information but due to the extensive nature of the material, estimates that the costs for disclosure exceed the statutory limit. The Commissioner agrees that the public authority’s estimate of its costs for compliance with the request is reasonable and exceeds the limit of Apounds 600. He does however, find the public authority in breach of sections 1(1)(a), 10(1), 16, 17(3) and 17(5) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50202964

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.532350

National Offender Management Service (Decision Notice): ICO 14 May 2008

The complainant requested information relating to the Office of Surveillance Commissioner inspection of HM Prison Service. The public authority replied that section 31(1)(f) (maintenance of security and good order in prisons) was engaged and that it would carry out a public interest determination within a target timeframe. The Commissioner finds that section 17(1)(c) was breached at this point as the public authority failed to inform the complainant why the exemption was engaged. The timeframe was readjusted on three separate occasions before the complainant complained to the Commissioner. The Commissioner finds a delay of over six months in carrying out a public interest determination a breach of section 17(3) to be unreasonable. The public authority is required to issue a notice explaining why section 31(1)(f) is engaged and where it believes the balance of the public interest lies. If the public authority concludes that the balance of the public interest favours disclosing the information or no longer considers the exemption to apply, the information should be provided to the complainant.
FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50188669

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.532638

National Offender Management Service (Decision Notice) FS50216949: ICO 28 Sep 2009

On 7 October 2008 and 3 November 2008 the complainant contacted the Commissioner to complain about the way his request of 6 February 2008 had been handled by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). The Commissioner has decided that some of the requested information should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. To the extent that the EIR applied NOMS breached Regulation 5(1) and (2) in failing to provide the requested information that it eventually released within twenty working days. To the extent that the Freedom of Information Act applied to the requested information, NOMS breached sections 1(1)(a) and (b) and 10(1) by not confirming the existence of information and providing it within the statutory timescales. In relation to the information that the public authority withheld on the basis of section 40(2), the public authority breached section 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) in failing to provide a refusal notice compliant with that section within twenty working days of the request. The Commissioner has not ordered any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50216949

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.532187

National Offender Management Service (Decision Notice) FS50195955: ICO 28 Jul 2008

ICO The complainant requested information from the public authority that related to communications that passed between the Ministry of Justice, the Probation service and others about the preparation of the answer to a Parliamentary question asked by the complainant’s MP on his behalf. The public authority extended the deadline for responding on four occasions. In five months prior to the involvement of the Commissioner no substantive response to the request was provided. The Commissioner gave the public authority a final opportunity to provide a substantive response to the request and heard nothing. The Commissioner has found that the public authority has breached section 10 as it has taken considerably more than twenty working days to comply with section 1(1) of the Act. The Commissioner also found the public authority in breach of section 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to either provide the information or issue a valid refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the Act within 35 days of the date of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50195955

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.532685

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Aug 2010

The complainant made a request to the BBC for a series of statistical information relating to annual payments made by its pension scheme and copies of all correspondence between the BBC’s human resources department and BBC Pension Trust relating to the financial state of the pension fund. The BBC responded that the statistical information was held on behalf of the BBC Pension Trust and therefore falls outside the definition of information held by a public authority under section 3(2)(a) of the Act. It also responded that it does not hold information falling within the scope of the request for correspondence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC handled the request in accordance with the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 3 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50266932

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.531573

National Offender Management Service (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Mar 2009

The complainant requested information from the public authority which consisted of all files and documents held by the Home Office, Merseyside Probation Service and Liverpool Offending Services in connection with the death of his son. The public authority repeatedly extended the deadline for its response. After a delay of five months, in response to a letter of complaint, the public authority explained that the delay in responding to the request was due to the sensitive nature of the information and the need to collate the material from a number of different departments. The Commissioner has found that, in not responding, the public authority has breached section 10 of the Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to either provide the information or issue a valid refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the Act within 35 days of the date of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50205235

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.531991

National Offender Management Service (Decision Notice) FS50190664: ICO 28 Sep 2009

The complainant made two requests for information concerning a medical examination on his late son on 13 August 1999, including the doctor’s name who conducted it. The public authority responded that it held no recorded information. The Commissioner determined that it was incorrect in this determination and therefore breached sections 1(1)(a) and (1)(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to the first request. It also breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) in relation to both of the requests. He also found a procedural breach of section 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) in relation to the first request. The public authority released all the outstanding recorded information except for the name of the doctor, which it withheld by reference to section 40(2). The Commissioner has found that the public authority was correct in its application of this exemption. The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50190664

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.532186

National Offender Management Service (Decision Notice) FS50214340: ICO 16 Mar 2009

The complainant requested information from the public authority about the National Security Framework. The public authority replied that section 31(1)(f) (maintenance of security and good order in prisons) was engaged and extended the time limit in order to assess the public interest test. The Commissioner finds that section 17(1)(c) was breached at this point as the public authority failed to inform the complainant why the exemption was engaged. The timeframe was readjusted on at least eight separate occasions before the complainant complained to the Commissioner. The Commissioner finds that the delay of over fourteen months in carrying out a public interest determination was a breach of section 17(3)(b). The Commissioner has also found two breaches of section 10(1). The public authority is required within 35 calendar days to respond fully to the request in compliance with its obligations under section 1(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50214340

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.531993

National Offender Management Service (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Jun 2009

The complainant requested the legal advice sought by the Prison Service (The National Offender Management Service) concerning the calculation of daily rates of pay. The public authority withheld the requested information by virtue of section 42 of the Act, on the basis that it attracts legal professional privilege. The Commissioner is satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information and has therefore not ordered the requested information to be disclosed. The Commissioner finds that the public authority breached section 17(1) of the Act by failing to issue a refusal notice within the statutory time limit for complying with the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50155116

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.532064

Northern Ireland Office (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Aug 2010

The complainant requested information from the Northern Ireland Office (the NIO) relating to the lapse of a security licence in 2006. The NIO initially refused the requested information under sections 44 and 31 of the Act. At internal review stage the NIO released most of the information, redacting a small amount of information under section 42 of the Act. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the NIO subsequently also applied sections 38 and 40 to some of the redacted information. The Commissioner finds that the exemptions have been correctly applied, and that the NIO acted correctly in refusing to provide some of the requested information. Therefore the Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken. However the Commissioner has noted a number of procedural breaches of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50275530

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.531620

Financial Services Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Mar 2010

The complainant submitted four requests to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) all of which focussed on the involvement of Aberdeen Asset Management Ltd in split capital investments, and the FSA’s subsequent investigation into such investments. The FSA complied with the first request but refused the remaining requests on the basis that the aggregated cost of complying with them was estimated to exceed the appropriate cost limit of pounds 450. The Commissioner has considered the circumstances of this refusal and has concluded that the requests are sufficiently similar to entitle the FSA to aggregate the cost of complying with them. Furthermore, the Commissioner is satisfied that the FSA has ‘provided a’ reasonable estimate which demonstrates that the cost of complying with any one of these three requests would exceed pounds 450 and thus the FSA is entitled to refuse to fulfil any of the three remaining requests. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the FSA fulfilled its obligation under section 16 of the Act to provide advice and assistance.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50191904

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.531348

Northern Ireland Office (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Aug 2010

The complainant requested information from the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) relating to the number of District Policing Partnership (DPP) members that had applied to be included in home or personal protection schemes over the last five years, the number of applications accepted/rejected and details of the specific DPP to which applicants belonged. The NIO refused to disclose the requested information, citing the exemptions at sections 24, 38 and 31 of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the exemptions have been correctly applied, and that the NIO acted correctly in refusing to disclose the requested information in reliance on sections 24, 38 and 31. Therefore the Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 24 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50260725

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.531619

Northern Ireland Office (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Feb 2010

The complainant made a request in May 2009 for information relating to the 1981 hunger strike in the Maze prison. The Northern Ireland Office acknowledged the request and subsequently replied in June 2009 that section 27 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applied to some of the information. It went on to inform the complainant that it would carry out a public interest determination within a target timeframe. The Commissioner finds that sections 17(1) and 10(1) of the Act were breached at this stage as the public authority failed to inform the complainant that all the requested information was subject to an exemption within 20 working days. Furthermore, where the NIO stated that section 27 did apply, it did not specify the relevant sub-section of the exemption or give reasons setting out why the exemption was engaged, thereby breaching sections 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c). The NIO subsequently adjusted its time frame to provide a substantive response on a number of separate occasions. The Commissioner has found the delay in carrying out a public interest assessment to be in breach of section 17(3)(b) of the Act. He therefore requires the public authority to issue a notice explaining why section 27 is engaged and where it believes the balance of the public interest lies. If the NIO concludes that the balance of the public interest favours disclosure, the requested information should be provided to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50272235

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.531295

Open University (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Jun 2010

The complainant made a number of requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the Open University for information relating to the use of animals and animal material at the University. The University responded to the requests, however the complainant is dissatisfied with the responses he received to requests 2, 4, and 10. The University refused to provide the information it held relevant to requests 2 and 4 as it stated that section 38 and section 43(2) exemptions were applicable. In relation to request 10 the University provided information to the complainant which it believed answered the request however the complainant required a further detailed breakdown of this information. The University explained that this more detailed information was not held under section 1(1)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner considers that the University correctly applied section 38 of the Act to requests 2 and 4. In relation to request 10 the Commissioner considers that the information is not held under section 1(1)(a) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50246399

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.531529

Northern Ireland Office (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Mar 2010

The complainant requested information relating to communications between the UK Government and the Provisional IRA during the 1981 hunger strike. The NIO withheld some information under section 27 of the Act. The NIO refused to confirm or deny whether it held further information, citing the exemptions at sections 23 and 24. The Commissioner finds that the section 27 exemption has been correctly applied, and the information should not be disclosed. Further, the Commissioner finds that the NIO acted correctly in refusing to confirm or deny whether it held further information in reliance on sections 23 and 24. Therefore the Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50142134

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.531377

Northern Ireland Office (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Nov 2011

The complainant made five requests to the Northern Ireland Office (the NIO). These requests related to the NIO Information Service (the NIOIS) and the transfer of staff from the NIO to the newly created Department of Justice. The complainant complained about the NIO’s response to requests 1, 2, 4 and 5. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NIO correctly refused request 1 and 2 under section 12(1), as compliance would exceed the cost limit. Although request 5 was a revised version 2, the Commissioner finds that it could still be aggregated with request 1 and compliance would still exceed the cost limit. However the Commissioner has also decided that the NIO provided insufficient advice and assistance to the complainant in order for her to be able to submit a refined or revised request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide practical and meaningful advice to the complainant, so that she may actively use that information to submit a refined or revised request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50390509

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.531095

Financial Services Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Nov 2012

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) for a list of its staff at manager level and above which had previously been disclosed in March 2010. The FSA refused the request by relying on the section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) exemption and the section 40(2) (personal information) exemption in the case of the individuals who had left the FSA or moved roles since the list was produced. The Commissioner has investigated and found that section 36(2)(c) is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner also found that section 40(2) was engaged in respect of individuals who had left the FSA by the time of the complainant’s request but was not engaged in respect of the individuals who were still employed by the FSA but had moved roles. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request with the exception of the names of individuals who have since left the FSA, which should be redacted.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50448746

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.530004

Northern Ireland Office (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Jun 2010

The complainant submitted a request to the Northern Ireland Office, for information relating to a murder investigation. The public authority withheld the information claiming it was exempt under sections 31(1)(c), 38(1)(a), 38(1)(b), 40(2) and 44(1)(c) of the Act. The public authority also refused to confirm or deny whether it held further information, citing sections 23(5) and 24(2). The Commissioner finds that the public authority correctly relied on sections 23, 24 and 31(1)(c) to refuse the request. As the Commissioner finds that these exemptions are correctly engaged, the Commissioner does not need to consider the application of the remaining exemptions to the requested information. The Commissioner directs that there are no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50209828

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.531521

Financial Services Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Sep 2010

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the public authority for information it held in relation to concerns it had about the management of the Leeds City Credit Union. The public authority refused the request under section 31 (Law Enforcement); section 40 (Personal information); section 43 (Commercial Interests) and section 44 (Prohibitions on disclosure). The public authority had argued that section 44 applied to all of the requested information by virtue of the statutory bar on disclosure within section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. However, the Commissioner found that section 44 was only partially engaged and so went on to consider the other exemptions in respect of the remainder of the information. The Commissioner found that section 31 was not engaged; that section 43 was engaged for most of the information withheld under that exemption and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure; and that section 40 was not engaged. Since the Commissioner decided that some of the information should have been disclosed he found the public authority in breach of section 1(1)(b) (General right of access) and section 10 (Time for compliance). The Commissioner now requires the public authority to make this information available to the complainant within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50286155

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.531654

Financial Services Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Jul 2010

The complainant requested information which related to the Split Capital Investment Trust investigation that had been submitted to the board of the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The FSA failed to respond within the required 20 working days and as such failed to meet the requirements set out in section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. With regards to the information requested, the FSA stated that it does not hold any information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and is satisfied that the FSA does not hold information covered by the scope of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50208721

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.531549