Department of Health (Central Government) FS50604568: ICO 1 Jun 2016

ICO The complainant has requested minutes and the name of attendees at a particular meeting between the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Health (DoH) and the General Medical Council (GMC). The DoH stated no minutes were held but considered the names of attendees should be withheld on the basis of section 35(1)(d) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the section 35(1)(d) exemption is engaged the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the attendees at the meeting.
FOI 35(1)(d): Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604568
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568304

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50596816: ICO 8 Jun 2016

ICO The complainant has requested the dates of interviews and names of those interviewed in relation to an inquiry into the leaking of a memo from the Scottish Office to the Daily Telegraph. The Cabinet Office cited section 31 (Law enforcement exemption) as its basis for refusal and upheld this at internal review. It also cited section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data) and section 38 (prejudice to health and safety).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 31 and section 40 as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 31: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50596816
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568281

BBC (Other): ICO 1 Jun 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about the number of programmes on LGBT issues. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50624709
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568276

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50594434: ICO 8 Jun 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information related to the investigation which followed the leak of a Scotland Office memo prior to the general election of 2015. The Cabinet Office refused to provide it citing provisions of section 31 (law enforcement) as its basis for doing so and section 21 (information available to the requester). The complainant challenged its use of section 31 and the Cabinet Office upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on the provisions of section 31 it has cited as its basis for refusing to provide the information in question. No steps are required.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50594434
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568279

Home Office (Central Government) FS50615851: ICO 18 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a named individual who was part of an aircrew that deserted from the German air force and flew to an RAF base in May 1943. The Home Office stated that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office stated correctly and in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA that it did not hold the requested information and so he does not require it to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50615851
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568255

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50618502: ICO 25 May 2016

The complainant requested information relating to the average size of a prison cell, including those in HMP Leeds and HMP Wakefield. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold the requested information. He requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50618502
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568263

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50612966: ICO 25 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to prison officer dismissals, broken down by reason for dismissal, within a specified timeframe. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 44(1) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exemption is engaged in this case. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to disclose the information withheld by virtue of those exemptions.
FOI 40: Upheld FOI 44: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50612966
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568261

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50616682: ICO 25 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to unreconciled payments on account (POA) of legal work to law firms in legally aided cases. The MoJ ultimately refused to provide the requested information citing section 12 (cost of compliance) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 12 as its basis for refusing to respond to the request. It has also provided adequate advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 of the FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50616682
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568262

Southwark Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 26 May 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (‘the Council’) relating to spend data. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 22 is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information requested on 16 December 2015.
FOI 22: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50617392
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568267

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 31 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to briefings prepared for the Home Secretary in April and May 2015 relating to Greville Janner. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice and exchange of views)) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(i) in this case and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 36: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50597284
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568252

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 19 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a named individual, who died in 1985. The Home Office stated that it did not hold information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office stated correctly that it did not hold the requested information, but also that the Home Office handled the request poorly and in so doing breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50613117
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568253

Leeds City Council FS50614757: ICO 23 May 2016

ICO (Local Government (City Council)) The complainant has requested information regarding equality impact assessments in respect of grants received by the museum service since 2011. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council has correctly applied the vexatious provision at section 14(1) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50614757
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568256

University of Southampton (Education (University)): ICO 18 May 2016

ICO The complainant has requested the university to disclose the training material used to train a particular therapist. Initially, the university refused to disclose this information citing section 43 of the FOIA. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation the university decided to disclose the requested information to the complainant and withdraw its previous reliance on section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner has reviewed how the requested was handled and he has recorded a breach of section 10 of the FOIA in this case. Overall, however, he requires no further action to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50615942
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568270

Home Office (Central Government) FS50615152: ICO 18 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information concerning whether two Home Office employees had completed specified e-learning courses. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 40(5) correctly so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50615152
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568254

Leeds City Council FS50614758: ICO 23 May 2016

ICO (Local Government (City Council)) The complainant has requested information regarding equality impact assessments in respect of grants received by the museum service since 2011 and information regarding plans to spend Arts Council England funding received by the museum service under the Major Partners Programme. The Commissioner considers that these requests relate to the same matter as a previous decision notice and that the analysis and conclusions reached in that previous notice are applicable in this instance. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council has correctly applied the vexatious provision at section 14(1) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50614758
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568257

Department of Health (Central Government) FS50604954: ICO 23 May 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information on who advised the Health Secretary about a report published in the British Medical Journal on the increased mortality associated with weekend hospital admissions. The Department of Health (DoH) withheld the information under sections 35(1)(a) – information relating to the formulation of government policy, and 35(1)(d) – information relating to the administration of a ministerial private office. The Commissioner’s decision is that although section 35(1)(a) is engaged, the public interest in maintaining it does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 35(1)(d) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority communicate the requested information to the complainant. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 35: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604954
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568243

Department of Energy and Climate Change (Central Government ): ICO 18 May 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) justification for state aid clearance submitted to the European Commission (the Commission) in respect of the EU’s consideration of the pricing methodology for Waste Transfer Contracts (WTCs) to be concluded between the UK government and operators of new nuclear power plants. DECC responded refusing to disclose the requested information citing regulations 12(5)(a) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that DECC has acted appropriately by refusing to disclose the requested information under regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(5)(a): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0608720
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568242

Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council – FS50599759: ICO 26 May 2016

ICO Local Government (Borough Council) – The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (‘the Council’) broadly relating to affordable housing and new developments given planning consent by the Council. The Council has dealt with the requests under the FOIA and stated that parts of the requested information is not held, provided other parts, and explained section 21 applied to the remaining information. The complainant disputed the Council’s assertion that some of the requested information was not held and that some information was reasonably accessible on the Council’s website. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information being requested is environmental information and therefore the EIR and not FOIA is the applicable access legislation. He therefore requires the Council to issue a new response to the requests under the EIR.
EIR 2(1)(c): Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50599759
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568249

Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council FS50601532: ICO 26 May 2016

ICO Local Government (Borough Council) – The complainant has requested information relating to a statement given by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (the Council). This said that a series of renegotiations on property deals had secured more than andpound;50 million of extra funding for borough residents, part of which would be used to deliver 231 new affordable homes. The Council has dealt with the requests under FOIA and stated that parts of the requested information is not held, provided other parts, and withheld financial figures relating to two developments pursuant to the ‘commercial confidentiality’ (section 43(2)) exemption to disclosure in FOIA. The complainant has disputed both the Council’s use of section 43(2) of FOIA and its assertion that some of the requested information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information being requested is environmental information and therefore the EIR and not FOIA is the applicable access legislation. He therefore requires the Council to issue a new response to the requests under the EIR.
EIR 2(1)(c): Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50601532
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568250

Mackay and Scottish Borders Council (Whether Request Was Vexatious): SIC 12 Jul 2016

SIC On 25 May 206, Mr Mackay asked Scottish Borders Council (the Council) for information relating to the Council’s actions under the Curators ad Litem and Reporting Officers (Panels) (Scotland) Regulations 2001.
The Council did not respond to the request. Following a review, the Council informed Mr Mackay that it considered his requests to be vexatious. Mr Mackay remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that, whether intentional or not, Mr Mackay’s request had the effect of harassing the Council, and it was entitled to refuse to comply with the request on the grounds that it was vexatious.

[2016] ScotIC 158 – 2016
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568220

West Dorset District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Oct 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to building works carried out at a specific property. West Dorset District Council provided the complainant with the requested information and confirmed that no further relevant information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Dorset District Council wrongly handled the request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and in doing so, breached regulation 5 of the EIR; and provided the complainant with all the information it holds which falls within the scope of the request and complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50494574
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.528830

Kerrier District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Feb 2006

ICO The complainant requested information relating to an earlier complaint he had made about a planning matter, and following receipt of the information complained to the Commissioner as he considered the Council’s response to be out of time. However, the Commissioner considered the matter and decided that the Council had complied with their statutory obligations by providing a response within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50072193
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.533358

Telford and Wrekin Council (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Oct 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to how Telford and Wrekin Council (‘the council’) manages a potential conflict of interest in relation to a specific employee. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold any further information within the scope of the request than that already provided. Therefore he does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50494890
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.528825

Sheffield City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to previous information requests and the expenditure of ‘Going Local’ money. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sheffield City Council (‘the council’, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold any further information within the scope of the request than that already provided. Therefore he does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50495205
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.528815

Sheffield City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested the specific ages of employees from Sheffield City Council. The council refused to provide this information. It claimed that it was personal data and therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly identified that the requested information would be personal data, and was correct to rely upon section 40(2) of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner identified that the council’s response was provided outside 20 working days from the complainant’s request, and therefore was in breach of section 10(1) of the FOIA. He requires no steps to be taken by the council.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50491595
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.528814

Southwark Council (Local Government (District Council)) FS50604878: ICO 9 May 2016

ICO The complainant has made a number of requests to the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) for information broadly relating to the serving of section 146 notices in accordance with the Law of Property Act 1925. The present notice concerns six of the requests. With regard to five of the requests (requests 1, 5 – 7 and 10), the Commissioner has decided that the Council either does not hold any information, or does not hold any further information in addition to the records that have already been provided. In relation to the remaining request (request 4(a)), the Commissioner has determined that the Council was not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) (appropriate costs limit) of FOIA but that it did breach section 16 (advice and assistance) by its initial handling of the request. In light of his findings, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken by the Council as a result of this notice.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604878
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564793

Southwark Council (Local Government (District Council)) FS50604998: ICO 9 May 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (‘the Council’) for a copy of leaseholder application forms for loan/charging orders in respect of debts for major works/service charge used between 2010-2015. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the complainant refined her request to ‘a copy of the leaseholder application forms for loans in respect of debts for major works/service charge used between 2013-2015’. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose a copy of leaseholder application forms for loans in respect of debts for major works/service charge used between 2013-2015 with information detailed at paragraph 3 redacted. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 40: Partly upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604998
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564794

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50623124: ICO 5 May 2016

ICO The complainant made a multi-part request for information to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to individuals with responsibility for compliance with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to this request within the statutory timescale the MoJ breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As a substantive response has been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50623124
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564783

Home Office (Central Government) FS50618706: ICO 3 May 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information about police powers under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act to detain mentally disordered persons found in public places. By the date of this notice the Home Office had not responded to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to the request, the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50618706
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564778

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50616675: ICO 9 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about the provision of kosher food for Orthodox Jewish prisoners. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) provided the recorded information it held relevant to the request. During the investigation, the MOJ confirmed it should instead have relied on section 21 of FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means) for parts 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the request, because it said the information requested is available to the complainant in the prison library. For part 4, it provided the information it held in recorded form and also some discretionary information following enquiries with the Head of Catering at the specified prison. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOJ has provided all the recorded information it holds relevant to the request, where that information is not covered by section 21 of FOIA. He finds that the MOJ properly relied on section 21 because the information is reasonably accessible. However, the MOJ failed to provide its refusal to respond within the statutory 20 working days framework and thereby breached section 17(1) of FOIA. He does not require the MOJ to take any remedial steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 21: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50616675
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564782

Home Office (Central Government) FS50604484: ICO 3 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to meetings held with the Governments of Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia or Egypt to discuss migration. The Home Office provided some information within the scope of the request but withheld the remainder citing sections 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means), 27(1) (international relations), 36(2)(b)(i) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the Home Office’s application of sections 27(1) and 40(2) and has concluded that the Home Office was entitled to apply those exemptions to the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 27: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604484
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564775

Home Office (Central Government) FS50611402: ICO 3 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about the seizure of illegal and counterfeit items at the Port of Tilbury in Essex. The Home Office confirmed it holds information with the scope of the request, but refused to provide it citing section 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement – the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b). No steps are required as a result of this decision.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50611402
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564776

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50614240: ICO 12 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the Gender Recognition Panel (GRP) including the list of names of the people who sit, or have sat, on that Panel. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it holds some of the requested information but refused to provide it citing sections 32(1)(c) (court records) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s application of section 40(2). His decision is that the MoJ correctly applied section 40(2) to the majority of the information withheld by virtue of that exemption. However, a small part of the withheld information is not exempt under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the MoJ disclose a small part of the withheld information that is set out in the Confidential Annex to this Notice.
FOI 40: Partly upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50614240
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564781

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50596926: ICO 10 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about court costs and summonses from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). It handled part 1 of the request outside the FOIA; it said it did not hold the information requested in part 2; it relied on the cost exclusion in section 12(2) in relation to part 3 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ should have handled part 1 of the request under the FOIA. He finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOJ does not hold the information requested in parts 1 and 2 of the request. He has also found that the MOJ correctly relied on section 12(1) in refusing to provide the requested information in part 3 of the request. However, the MOJ failed to provide its response within the statutory 20 working days framework and thereby breached section 17(1) of the FOIA. In addition, the MOJ breached section 16 of the FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with advice and assistance as to how she might refine her request with a view to bringing it under the cost limit. He does not require the MOJ to take any remedial steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 8: Upheld FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50596926
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564780

Department of Health (Central Government) FS50600541: ICO 10 May 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information on any meetings between the Chair of a Pay Review Body and politicians/civil servants to discuss the document on doctors and dentists contract reform. The Department of Health identified a number of documents including briefings, minutes and information provided to oral evidence sessions which it considered exemption on the basis of section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH has correctly applied the section 35(1)(a) exemption and balanced the public interest appropriately to withhold the majority of this information. However, he finds the public interest favours disclosure in relation to the information contained in two documents. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information contained in the following two documents: (2) PSH brief for meetings with Chair of the Pay Review Bodies – Sept 2014; and (1) PSP brief for meetings with DDRB – July 15.
FOI 35: Partly upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50600541
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564767

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 27 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to Home Office vehicles. The Home Office disclosed some of the requested information, but withheld the remainder and cited the exemption provided by section 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 31(1)(a) correctly, so it was not obliged to disclose the withheld information.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50614428
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564738

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 21 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information about the documentation required by transgender people when applying for a UK passport. By the date of this notice the Home Office had not responded to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to the request, the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50619428
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564740

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 28 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant requested the number of payments made by the Home Office of more than andpound;25,000 that were not included in the information published by the Home Office about such payments, and the amount of each of those payments. The Home Office refused this request on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 12(1) incorrectly and it is now required to issue a fresh response to the request.
FOI 12: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50607008
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564737

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50623990: ICO 21 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about council tax liability hearings. By the date of this notice, the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to issue a response to the request set out in paragraph 5 under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50623990
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564747

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 18 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about the contents of four named Home Office (HO) files on 13 August 2015. HO provided an initial holding reply, citing the section 24(1) FOIA exemption but, despite reminders from both the complainant and the Commissioner, has still not provided a full reply including a public interest balancing test. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that HO has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA in that it has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires HO respond to the request.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50616206
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564739

City College, Brighton and Hove (Education (College)): ICO 20 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant made a number of requests for information relating to an intended redevelopment of City College’s campus in Brighton. The college refused the requests partly on cost grounds under s12(1) FOIA and partly as vexatious under s14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that s12(1) applies to the whole of the information requested and so the college is not obliged to comply with the requests.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50603999
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564730

North Yorkshire Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 19 Apr 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a train accident that occurred at Selby on 28 February 2001. North Yorkshire Police (NYP) responded and said that determining whether this information was held would exceed the cost limit (section 12(2)) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NYP was aware without undertaking significant work that it held information within the scope of the request and so was incorrect to rely on section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also found that NYP breached section 17(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires NYP to issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 12(2) of the FOIA.
FOI 12: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50589979
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564749

BBC (Other): ICO 30 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the September 2013 BBC One Panorama programme Saving Syria’s Children (SSC) and related BBC News reports. The BBC explained that the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall within the scope of FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50617034
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564722

Prince Albert v Strange: ChD 8 Feb 1849

The Prince sought to restrain publication of otherwise unpublished private etchings and lists of works by Queen Victoria. The etchings appeared to have been removed surreptitiously from or by one Brown. A personal confidence was claimed.
Held: The jurisdiction in confidence is based not so much on property or on contract as on a duty of good faith. In granting an injunction restraining the publication of the catalogue containing descriptions of etchings, the court said it was ‘an intrusion – an unbecoming and unseemly intrusion . . offensive to that inbred sense of propriety natural to every man – if, intrusion, indeed, fitly describes a sordid spying into the privacy of domestic life – into the home (a word hitherto sacred among us).’ The plaintiff’s affidavits: ‘state distinctly the belief of the Plaintiff, that the catalogue and the descriptive and other remarks therein contained, could not have been compiled or made, except by means of the possession of the several impressions of the said etchings surreptitiously and improperly obtained. To this case no answer is made . . If then, these compositions were kept private, except as to some . . sent to [B] for the purposes of having certain impressions taken, the possession of the Defendant . . must have originated in a breach of trust, confidence, or contract, in [B] or some person in his employ taking more impressions than were ordered, and retaining the extra number.’ Lord Cottenham LC said: ‘privacy is the right invaded.’

Vice-Chancellor Knight-Bruce, Lord Cottenham LC
(1849) 1 H and Tw 1, 2 De G and SM 293, (1849) 1 Mac and G 25, [1849] EWHC Ch J20, [1849] EngR 255, (1849) 41 ER 1171, [1849] EngR 261, (1849) 47 ER 1302, (1849) 2 De Gex and Sim 652
Bailii, Commonlii, Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAnn Paxton Gee v William Pritchard And William Anderson 17-Jul-1818
The Lord Chancellor repudiated an argument that the publication of letters should be restrained, because their publication would be painful to the feelings of the Plaintiff; and said, ‘The question will be, whether the bill has stated facts of which . .
CitedWilkins v Aikin 4-Aug-1810
The defendant was said to have copied works of the plaintiff. The court considered the defence of fair use. . .
CitedSpottiswoode v Clark 11-Dec-1846
A plaintiff seeking an injunction to restrain publication of documents must first demonstrate a title in them. . .
CitedRigby And Another v The Great Western Railway Company 1-Dec-1845
. .
CitedAbernethy v Hutchinson 17-Jun-1825
An application was made to restrain the Defendants from publishing, in ‘The Lancet,’ Mr Abernethy’s Lectures, which had been delivered extemporally. Lord Eldon, at first, refused the application; but afterward granted an injunction, in the ground . .
CitedSaunders And Benning v Smith And Maxwell 22-Jun-1838
. .
CitedGyles v Wilcox, Nutt and Barrow 6-Mar-1740
Copyright Purposes claim limited
The plaintiff bookmaker was publisher of Matthew Hale’s Pleas of the Crown. The first and second defendants hired the third to abridge it and they began to published the result as Modern Crown Law. The plaintiff sought to restrain further . .
CitedMacklin v Richardson 5-Dec-1770
A short-hand writer took down the words from the mouths of the actors on the stage playing the farce of ‘Love a la Mode’, and the Defendant afterward published them, and an injunction was granted to restrain him, on the ground that the author had . .
CitedCarr v Hood QBD 1808
Lord Ellenborough said: ‘it is not libellous to ridicule a literary composition, or the author of it, in so far as he has embodied himself with his work.
Every man who publishes a book commits himself to the judgment of the public, and anyone . .
CitedClarke v Tipping 18-Apr-1846
The Defendant had bribed the Plaintiff’s agent to make extracts of false entries from the books of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not move for an injunction on the Defendant’s answer; but, on the cause coming on for hearing, it appeared that . .
CitedMurray v Elliston 3-May-1822
The defendant represented Lord Byron’s tragedy of ‘Marino Faliero, Doge of Venice,’ on the stage, with some alterations from the printed tragedy.
Held: The manager of a theatre having publicly represented for profit a tragedy, altered and . .
CitedGreen v Folgham 10-Jun-1823
. .
CitedAldred’s Case 1619
An action would lie where a pig-stye was erected so close to the plaintiff’s house as to corrupt the air in the house, and also and similarly for a lime-kiln with smoke, or where filth from a dye house runs into a fish pond. Where the plaintiff . .
CitedPope v Curl 17-Jun-1741
The defendant, on his answer being put in, moved to dissolve an injunction against his vending a book of letters from Swift, Pope,and others.
Held: A collection of letters as well as other books, is within the intention of the 8th of Queen . .
CitedBridgeman v Green 1757
The question before the court was whether certain money, which had been obtained by fraud, ought to be returned to the Plaintiff by a party who had received it, but who was not a party to the fraud. Lord Commissioner Wilmot said, ‘Whoever receives . .
CitedDuke of Queensberry v Shebbeare 31-Jul-1758
The court considered the grant of an injunction to restrain publication of a manuscript of Lord Clarendon’s ‘History of the Reign of Charles the Second’ delivered to the defendant, but not for publication.
Held: The injunction was granted. . .
CitedMillar v Taylor 20-Apr-1769
Yates J said: ‘It is certain every man has a right to keep his own sentiments if he pleases. He has certainly a right to judge whether he will make them public, or commit them only to the sight of his friends. In that state the manuscript is, in . .
CitedDonaldson v Beckett HL 22-Feb-1774
Copyright Must Be Limited in Time
The booksellers’ statutory copyright rights had expired. They requested the court to recognise a continuing right akin to copyright under common law.
Held: Following Hinton -v- Donaldson, the Lords dissolved an injunction against Alexander . .
CitedSir Charles Thompson And Others, Executors of Lord Chesterfield v Eugenia Stanhope, Widow, And John Dodsley 23-Mar-1774
Lord Apsley granted an injunction, on the application of Lord Chesterfield’s executor, to restrain the widow of his son from publishing letters which the son had received from Lord Chesterfield. . .
CitedLord And Lady Perceval v Phipps 3-Jun-1813
Copyright in private letters remained even after transmission and an injunction could be granted to prevent further repubication. However here where the defendant was relying upon the letters to disprove false allegations made against him, that . .
CitedEarl Cholmondeley v Lord Clinton 3-Feb-1815
An Attorney or solicitor cannot give up his client, and act for the opposite party, in any suit between them. . .
CitedSouthey v Sherwood And Others 18-Mar-1817
Lord Eldon refused an injunction to restrain the publication of Wat Tyler, because he held the work itself to be of an injurious tendency; but he maintained the principle, that, if the work had been innocent in its character, the author would have . .

Cited by:
CitedDouglas etc v Hello! Ltd etc ChD 11-Apr-2003
The claimants were to be married. They sold the rights to publish photographs of their wedding, but various of the defendants took and published unauthorised pictures.
Held: The claimants had gone to lengths to ensure the commercial value of . .
CitedBritish Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd HL 7-May-1980
The defendant had broadcast a TV programme using material confidential to the plaintiff, who now sought disclosure of the identity of the presumed thief.
Held: (Lord Salmon dissenting) The courts have never recognised a public interest right . .
CitedCampbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
CitedCoco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd ChD 1968
Requirememts to prove breach of confidence
A claim was made for breach of confidence in respect of technical information whose value was commercial.
Held: Megarry J set out three elements which will normally be required if, apart from contract, a case of breach of confidence is to . .
CitedDouglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
CitedMurray v Express Newspapers Plc and Another ChD 7-Aug-2007
The claimant, now aged four and the son of a famous author, was photographed by use of a long lens, but in a public street. He now sought removal of the photograph from the defendant’s catalogue, and damages for breach of confidence.
Held: The . .
CitedTchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
ApprovedLamb v Evans CA 1893
The plaintiff printed and published a multi-lingual European trade directory, engaging the defendants as commission agents to solicit paid entries for the directory. The businessmen could, if they wished, supply wood blocks or other materials from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Information

Leading Case

Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.181403

Ireland v Parliament and Council: ECJ 10 Feb 2009

ECJ (Approximation of laws) Action for annulment – Directive 2006/24/EC – Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services – Choice of legal basis

V Skouris, P
[2009] 2 CMLR 37, [2009] ECR I-593, [2009] EUECJ C-301/06, [2009] All ER (EC) 1181
Bailii
Directive 2006/24/EC
European
Cited by:
CitedSecretary of State for The Home Department v Davis MP and Others CA 20-Nov-2015
The Secretary of State appealed against a ruling that section 1 of the 2014 Act was inconsistent wih European law.
Held: The following questions were referred to the CJEU:
(1) Did the CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland intend to lay down . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563285

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50614968: ICO 8 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request for information to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) about Just Solutions International and related payments, bids and contract. By the date of this notice, the MOJ has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to issue a response to the request set out in paragraph 5. The MOJ must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50614968
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561783

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50613442: ICO 7 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request for information to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) for numbers of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (‘RIPA’) requests about prison staff. By the date of this notice, the MOJ has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to issue a response to the request set out in paragraph 5.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50613442
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561782

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50615869: ICO 17 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request for information to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) about case jurisdictions it oversees under the heading of Special Educational Needs and Disability. By the date of this notice, the MOJ has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to issue a response to the request set out in paragraph 5 under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50615869
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561784

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50616129: ICO 17 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request for information to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) about court costs. By the date of this notice, the MOJ has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to issue a response to the request set out in paragraph 5 under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50616129
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561785

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50600092: ICO 8 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request for information to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) about Just Solutions International and related payments, bids and contract. By the date of this notice, the MOJ has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to issue a response to the request set out in paragraph 5. The MOJ must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50600092
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561780

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50601684: ICO 17 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant gave the name and address of an individual and requested information relating to whether that individual was a Magistrate. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of this request and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ cited section 40(5) correctly so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held this information.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50601684
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561781

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 16 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the issuing of an allegedly false passport to a named individual. The Home Office responded to this request by asking the complainant to provide evidence of his identity, evidence that the individual named in the request is deceased, a signed version of his request and his postal address. It stated that the request would not be progressed without the provision of those materials. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was valid for the purposes of section 8 of the FOIA without the provision of any of the materials requested by the Home Office and that it was not permitted to refuse to comply with the request unless those materials were provided. In failing to respond to the request within 20 working days the Home Office breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. It is now required to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office respond to the request.
FOI 8: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50611991
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561772

Department of Health (Central Government) FS50596375: ICO 10 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant made a request to the Department of Health (DoH) for information relating to financial figures on the role of technology in driving efficiency savings in the NHS, as discussed at the National Information Board meeting on June 17, 2015. The DoH refused to provide the information it held within the scope of the request under section 35(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH has correctly applied section 35(1)(a) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 35: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50596375
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561758

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50594131: ICO 8 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information in files relating to Anthony Blunt. The Cabinet Office withheld this citing the exemptions at section 22(1) (Information intended for future publication), section 23(1) (Security bodies’ information), section 40(2) (Unfair disclosure of personal data); and section 41(1) (Information provided in confidence) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 22(1) as its basis for withholding some of the information and section 23(1) as its basis for withholding the remainder. No steps are required.
FOI 22: Not upheld FOI 23: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50594131
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561741

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50580558: ICO 7 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to meetings between government ministers or their staff and representatives of the Duchy of Cornwall, including the Duke himself – His Royal Highness Prince Charles. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 12(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner’s decision is that Cabinet Office has not sufficiently justified its use of section 12(2) of the Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a substantive response to the complainant which does not refuse the request under section 12(2) of the Act.
FOI 12: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50580558
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561736

BBC (Other) FS50615017: ICO 8 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant made a request to the BBC for anonymised conflict of interest forms of BBC Newsnight staff. The BBC responded to the request by explaining that the information was derogated in that it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and therefore not subject to FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50615017
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561731

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50590373: ICO 7 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information about breaking of diplomatic relations between Syria and the UK during 1986. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny it held information within the scope of the request, citing section 23(5) (security bodies) or section 24(2) (national security) as its basis for doing so. It also cited section 27(4) (international relations). It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 23(5) and section 24(2) as its basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. No steps are required.
FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 42: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50590373
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561739

BBC (Other) FS50614296: ICO 8 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant made a request to the BBC for information about the potential conflict of interest involving a BBC employee. The BBC responded to the request by explaining that the information was derogated in that it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and therefore not subject to FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50614296
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561730

BBC (Other): ICO 22 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information about the cost to the BBC of providing its staff at Media City UK in Salford Quays with free teas and coffee, together with the details of the drinks consumed. The BBC initially refused the request under section 43 – commercial interests, but at the internal stage it refused to provide the majority of the information under section 12 on the basis that complying with the request would exceed the cost limit for dealing with such requests. It did however provide some information on the brands of the beverages. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC is entitled to refuse the request under section 12. However, to date, the BBC has not provided the complainant with the advice and assistance required to enable him to make a fresh request which could be dealt with within the appropriate limit. This constitutes a breach of section 16. The Commissioner requires the public authority provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50598278
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561729

Valuation Office Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Feb 2012

ICO The complainant requested a copy of survey notes relating to a specific building. The Valuation Office Agency (the VOA) stated that the information, if held, would be exempt under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA and explained that the duty to confirm or deny whether the information is held does not arise under section 44(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the VOA was correct to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information under section 44(2) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50404281
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.529240

Department of Finance and Personnel NI (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Mar 2012

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the number of employment tribunal claims brought against Northern Ireland civil service departments from 2000 onwards, defended as well as undefended. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland (DFPNI) was incorrect to claim a reliance on section 14 of FOIA. The Information Commissioner therefore requires DFPNI to either disclose the information or issue a valid refusal notice citing a valid exemption in accordance with FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50417990
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.529285

Southwark Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 15 Feb 2016

ICO The complainant has requested two reports produced by the District Valuer Service (DVS) for the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) in relation to the proposed development of the Heygate Estate. The Council provided the complainant with the reports prepared by the DVS subject to redactions made under the ‘confidentiality of commercial or industrial information’ (regulation 12(5)(e)) exception in the EIR. The complainant has asked the Commissioner to consider whether the Council was entitled to withhold this information. The Commissioner has decided that the withheld information engages regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR and that in all the circumstances the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exception. He does not therefore require the Council to take any steps.
EIR 12(5)(e): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0594174
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560940