Tag: Information

Sevenoaks District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 15 Aug 2017

The complainant has requested information about specific expenditure at Sevenoaks District Council (SDC). Some of the requested information has been disclosed, it is SDC’s position that some of the information is not held and the remainder of the request has been refused by SDC relying on sections 12 and 21. The Commissioner’s decision is that SDC is entitled to rely on section 21 to refuse parts of the request and that on the balance of probabilities some of the information is not held but that SDC has not satisfactorily established that the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit and is not therefore entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse to comply with the request. Furthermore, SDC has failed to provide any advice or assistance to the complainant and accordingly has breached section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the requested information which has been withheld in accordance with section 12. 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: Not upheld FOI 12: Upheld FOI 16: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50664496

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.594009

Horsham District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 6 Sep 2016

The complainant has requested information related to a grant for Steyning Area Youth Service. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Horsham District Council does not hold further information relevant to this request. She does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50622035

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.571080

Horsham District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 14 Sep 2016

The complainant has requested emails between specific Councillors and a specific individual in relation to the Horsham District Planning Framework and a letter in a local newspaper. Horsham District Council initially stated that it does not hold the requested emails for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Horsham District Council does not hold the requested information. He does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
EIR 5: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FER0616686

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.571079

Mayer v EFSA: ECFI 17 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Seconded national expert – EFSA rules on SNEs – Decision not to extend the secondment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual – Protection of personal data – Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 – Applications for a declaration and seeking the issue of directions – Written pleadings supplementing the originating application – Amendments to the heads of claim – Admissibility

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:100, [2017] EUECJ T-493/14

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575271

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Nhs Foundation Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant requested that Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust should provide her with all the information it held in relation to her deceased mother. The Trust confirmed that it held a health care file but refused to disclose it under section 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 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 Trust does not consider that the complainant is the personal representative of the deceased and has the right of access to the health care file under the AHRA. The Commissioner finds that the Trust was correct to apply section 41(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50328157

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 41(1), Access to Health Records Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.530712

Consumer Council for Water (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant requested information about ‘grievance complaints’ and ‘internal complaints and appeals from staff’. The CCW refused to provide this information under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. During the investigation the complainant agreed to limit his complaint to the procedural aspects of the case. The Commissioner finds that the CCW failed to meet the requirements of sections 17(1), 17(1)(b) and 17(7)(b).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50383021

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.530716

Environment Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Sep 2010

The complainant made a multipart request to the Environment Agency relating to its monitoring of the River Test in Hampshire after a pollution incident in 2008. The Environment Agency initially informed the complainant that the request was likely to be considered manifestly unreasonable and asked him to narrow his request. The complainant did narrow his request, however the Environment Agency subsequently claimed that the request was still manifestly unreasonable under Regulation 12(4)(b) as it would take in excess of 60 hours for it to respond. The Commissioner has considered the request. His decision is that the request was not manifestly unreasonable given that the Environment Agency did not provide adequate proof that it’s estimate for complying with the request was reasonable. He has ordered that the Environment Agency either provide the complainant with the requested information in accordance with regulation 5(1) or issue a further refusal notice as required by regulation 14(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FER0253026

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.531652

Environment Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Mar 2010

The complainant requested information in relation to non-prosecution concerning illegal landfill gas emissions at Welbeck landfill site. The Environment Agency refused to disclose this information on the basis that regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR applied, and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosure. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that both regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) were engaged, and that the public interest in maintaining the exceptions outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. Therefore he has decided that the Environment Agency was correct to withhold the information in question.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FER0220864

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.531346

Bishop Burton College (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant requested the exact post or job titles of the 17 individuals that the College made redundant. The College provided a summary of the posts, but explained that it considered that the exact information was exempt and maintained its position in its internal review. The complainant referred the case to the Commissioner. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the College agreed to disclose the full job titles for six of the individuals. For the remainder, it confirmed that it believed that sections 40(2) and 41(1) applied to the post titles. The Commissioner considers that section 40(2) has been applied appropriately to the outstanding withheld information. He has, however, noted a number of procedural breaches. He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50382867

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.530709

Environment Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Jul 2013

The complainant has requested information from the Environment Agency relating to coastal erosion. This was in the form of 2 separate requests. The Environment Agency refused to disclose information in relation to the complainant’s second request, applying regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR as a basis for non-disclosure. The Environment Agency provided information in relation to the complainant’s first request, however this was provided outside the statutory 20 working day time limit as set out in regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner considers that the Environment Agency has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the complainant’s second request, however it has breached regulation 5(2) in relation to the first request by providing the requested information outside the statutory time limit. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0469276

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.528453

Environment Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jul 2012

ICO The complainant has requested transcripts of interviews conducted by the Environment Agency with the Deputy Chief Executive of Heart of England NHS Trust and a senior manager about waste management at the Trust. The complainant also asked for a letter sent by the EA to the Trust in February 2007. The Environment Agency withheld some information under regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(f). The Commissioner considered some information to be the personal data of third parties and therefore considered regulation 13(1). In addition to this the EA identified some information as being the personal data of the applicant and applied regulation 5(3). The EA has considered this latter information separately under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) as a basis for withholding the requested information. He has therefore not gone on to consider the application of the other exceptions. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0172 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0439925

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.529623

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Sep 2011

On 2 February 2010 the complainant requested information about the correspondence and communications between the MHRA and another organisation. The MHRA did not respond to this request. After correspondence with the Commissioner, it explained that it believed it was not obliged to respond to this request for information by virtue of section 17(6) because it was part of a pattern of requests that were vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner considered the complainant’s own personal data in an assessment made under the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘the DPA’). For the remainder of the information, the Commissioner considers that the MHRA was correct in finding that the request was vexatious under section 14(1) and that it did not need to answer it. The Commissioner has also found that the MHRA could rely on section 17(6) appropriately and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0238 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50364598

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.530862

Gordon and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 3 Nov 2016

On 8 March 2016, Police Scotland were asked for information about the production and issuing of a specified letter. Initially, Police Scotland refused to confirm or deny whether they held the information, or whether it existed. Later, they confirmed they held it but withheld it as personal data, and under other exemptions.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, Police Scotland carried out additional searches and located further information covered by the request. As this information was not located during Police Scotland’s handling of the request and review request, the Commissioner found that Police Scotland failed to comply with FOISA.
The Commissioner accepted that Police Scotland were entitled to withhold all of the information as personal data; this included reaching a view about whether the data subject had already put personal data into the public domain.

Citations:

[2016] ScotIC 234 – 2016

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573445