Tag: Information

Rob Edwards and Scottish Ministers: SIC 8 Dec 2008

Abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges – Mr Edwards made two requests to the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information relating to the abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges. The Ministers responded by providing Mr Edwards with some of the information falling within the scope of his requests. However, the Ministers withheld certain documentation under various exemptions in FOISA. Following a review, Mr Edwards remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Ministers notified the Commissioner that on further consideration of the requests, they now considered that the costs of compliance with each request would exceed andpound;600 (and therefore that they were not obliged to comply with the requests in terms of section 12(1) of FOISA). The Ministers subsequently provided the Commissioner with an estimate of the projected costs of compliance.
As a result of the investigation, the Commissioner found that the projected costs of compliance in each case would exceed andpound;600 and that the Ministers were not required to respond to the requests.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 154 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434261

Loveday’s and Scottish Borders Council: SIC 8 Dec 2008

SIC Failure to respond to a request for information within the required timescales and failure to respond to a request for review.
This decision considers whether Scottish Borders Council (the Council) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to an information request made by Loveday’s. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had failed to comply with the timescales specified in sections 10(1) and 21(1) of FOISA.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 153 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434255

Capacity Building Project and City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 8 Dec 2008

SIC Investigation into complaints against the Capacity Building Project – Summary – The Capacity Building Project (the Project) requested from the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) copies of original letters of complaint, a list of individuals interviewed in the course of an investigation conducted by the Council and the transcripts of interviews conducted as part of the investigation. The Council responded by providing the Project with redacted versions of the complaint letters, where it has withheld information in terms of section 36(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The Council also withheld the list of interviewees and the transcripts of those interviews in terms of sections 36(2), 35(1)(g) and 35(2)(b) of FOISA. Following a review, the Council also applied the exemption in section 38(1)(b) to the information withheld. The Project remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with the Project’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA because all of the information withheld was exempt from disclosure. He did not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 152 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434252

W and Scottish Court Service: SIC 8 Dec 2008

Regulations, Rules of Court and procedures – Mr W requested from the Scottish Court Service (SCS) copies of regulations and rules of court, along with advice regarding a particular case. The SCS responded by providing a copy of the requested regulations, while declining to provide advice. Following a review, during which Mr W was informed under section 17 of FOISA that information was not held, Mr W remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, during which the SCS also claimed some of the information to be exempt in terms of section 25(1) of FOISA, the Commissioner found that the information requested was either not held or exempt in terms of section 25(1) of FOISA in that it was otherwise accessible to the applicant.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 150 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434262

Councillor Danny Carrigan and Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board: SIC 8 Dec 2008

Addresses and sales dates of specific properties – Councillor Danny Carrigan (Councillor Carrigan) requested from the Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board (the Board) the exact addresses and sales dates of the three properties whose selling price had been used to determine the council tax banding of a property inhabited by one of his constituents. The Board responded by advising Councillor Carrigan that it considered the information exempt from disclosure in terms of section 25(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Following a review, Councillor Carrigan remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Board had dealt with Councillor Carrigan’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by correctly applying the exemption in section 25(1) of FOISA to the withheld information. He did not require the Board to take any action.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 151 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434253

X and Scottish Court Service: SIC 12 Jan 2009

Solemn criminal appeals – Mr X requested from the Scottish Court Service (the SCS) information relating to solemn criminal appeals. The SCS responded by confirming that the information requested by Mr X was not held. Following a review, as a result of which the SCS retracted its assertion that the information was not held, Mr X was provided with the information the SCS believed at the time fell within the scope of his request. Mr X remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Commissioner was notified that on further consideration the SCS now took the view that the information provided to Mr X represented only part of the request. However, the SCS also submitted, with supporting calculations, that the cost of full compliance would exceed andpound;600. As a result of the investigation, the Commissioner accepted that the cost of compliance in this case would exceed andpound;600 and consequently that (by virtue of section 12(1) of FOISA) the SCS was not obliged to comply with the request. He also found, however, that the SCS had failed to provide Mr X with adequate advice and assistance in responding to his request.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 002 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433954

R and Orkney Islands Council: SIC 10 Sep 2009

Mr R requested from Orkney Islands Council (the Council) information relating to Equal Opportunities. He also asked for other information relating to him which does not form part of this Decision. The Council initially failed to respond but later responded to a request for review. It also supplied Mr R with its equal opportunity policy together with statistical information which fell within the scope of his request and an explanation of information held. Following the review, Mr R remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council complied with Part 1 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in that it was correct to inform Mr R that it did not hold an Equal Opportunities Charter, in keeping with section 17 of FOISA.
However, the Commissioner also found that the Council failed to comply with Part 1 of FOISA, in particular by failing to provide reasonable advice and assistance to Mr R regarding clarification of the request and in line with its duty under section 15 of FOISA. It also failed to comply with Part 1 of FOISA by not responding within the statutory timescales in terms of section 10(1) of FOISA and by failing to carry out a review in line with sections 21(4) and (5) of FOISA within the timescales laid down by section 21(1) of FOISA. He does not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 107 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434058

Croisdain Mackenzie and Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: SIC 2 Apr 2009

SIC Mr Croisdain MacKenzie (Mr MacKenzie) requested from Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Council) a specified Opinion of Senior Counsel and related information. The Council provided some information, but withheld the Opinion and a summary of it in terms of section 36(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), on the basis that these documents were information in respect of which a claim of confidentiality of communications could be maintained in legal proceedings. Following a review, Mr MacKenzie remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr MacKenzie’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He found that the Council had correctly applied the exemption in section 36(1) and that the public interest in disclosing of the information was outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
However, the Commissioner found that the Council had failed to respond to Mr MacKenzie’s request for review within the timescale specified in section 21(1) of FOISA. He did not require the Council to take any action in relation to this breach in response to this decision.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 040 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433993

Gowans and Falkirk Council: SIC 12 Jan 2009

SIC Mr John R Gowans requested all the information Falkirk Council (the Council) held regarding the death of his son, Craig Gowans. The Council relied upon sections 34(1)(a), 34(1)(b), 34(2)(b) and 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) to withhold all of the requested information. Following a review, in which the Council upheld its previous decision, Mr Gowans remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr Gowans’ request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by withholding the information under section 34(1)(a) of FOISA. He did not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 004 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433951

Carlin and Renfrewshire Council: SIC 12 Jan 2009

Mr Carlin requested from Renfrewshire Council (the Council) all documents relating to a specified investigation of a Councillor. The Council responded by withholding the information under sections 34(1) and 38 of FOISA. Following a review, in which the Council upheld its decision to withhold the information, Mr Carlin remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr Carlin’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He found that the information was properly withheld under section 34(1)(b) of FOISA, on the basis that it was information which had been held by the Council for the purposes of carrying out a relevant investigation and the public interest lay in withholding this information.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 003 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433952

Angove v Scottish Ministers: SIC 19 Oct 2010

SIC Failure to respond to request and request for review – This decision considers whether the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to the information request made by Mr Angove.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 180 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433904

Rowlands v Scottish Water: SIC 21 Jul 2010

SIC Mr Rowlands requested from Scottish Water information relating to correspondence between Scottish Water and others relating to houses at Cairndow, Argyll. Scottish Water responded by supplying information relating to the request. Following a review, as a consequence of which Scottish Water provided further information and confirmed that the request had been dealt with under the EIRs, Mr Rowlands remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following the investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that Scottish Water had provided Mr Rowlands with all the relevant information it held.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 131 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433853

Cannell v Glasgow City Council: SIC 21 Apr 2011

Placements in Council care homes –
Mr Cannell requested from Glasgow City Council (the Council) the date on which an instruction had been given to social workers to make elderly care placements in its own care homes before using private or voluntary sector homes. The Council responded by indicating that it had no policy requiring such an arrangement and therefore did not therefore consider itself to hold such information. Following a review, Mr Cannell remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, although the Commissioner was not entirely satisfied with the Council’s handling of Mr Cannell’s request for information, he accepted that the Council had been correct to give Mr Cannell notice that it did not hold the requested information.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 080 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433722

National Archives (Central Government): ICO 28 Mar 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to correspondence between Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. The Commissioner’s decision is that The National Archives (TNA) has correctly applied section 38(1)(a) of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 38: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50699237

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.617643

National Archives (Central Government): ICO 22 Jun 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to closed file FCO 57/875 ‘Soundings of Candidates for New Year and the Queen’s Birthday Honours, on behalf of the Prime Minister’s Office’. The Commissioner’s decision is that The National Archives (TNA) has correctly applied section 37(1)(b) of the FOIA (Communications with Her Majesty, etc. and honours) to the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 37: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50714484

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.621263

National Archives (Central Government): ICO 30 Nov 2017

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the National Archives (TNA) for a copy of a file relating to the Coronation of HM Queen Elizabeth II in 1953. TNA refused the request under the exemption in section 27(1) (International Relations). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 27(1) and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also found that TNA breached section 17(3) in its handling of the complainant’s request and 3 other requests but she requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 27: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50678959

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.602434

National Archives (Central Government): ICO 7 Nov 2017

The complainant has requested access to the closed document FCO 9/1053. The National Archives (TNA) cited the exemption provided by section 27 – international relations to refuse the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA is entitled to rely on the exemption provided by section 27(1) to withhold the information.
FOI 27: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50695067

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.602435

Dr X v Scottish Ministers: SIC 20 Apr 2011

SIC Dr X requested from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) certain correspondence relating to Dr X. The Ministers responded by treating this as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998. Following a review, as a result of which the Ministers also relied on section 38(1)(a) of FOISA, Dr X remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Ministers had dealt with Dr X’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by withholding the information as the applicant’s personal data in accordance with the exemption in section 38(1)(a) of FOISA. He did not require the Ministers to take any action

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 078 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433717

Visible Means Limited and Board of Management of Carnegie College: SIC 11 Mar 2011

Visible Means Limited (Visible Means) requested from the Board of Management of Carnegie College (the College) specified information relating to a logo it had designed. The College responded by advising that it did not hold the information in question. Following a review, Visible Means remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the College had dealt with Visible Means’ request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by advising Visible Means that it did not hold the requested information.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 049 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433715

Cairns and Audit Scotland: SIC 11 Mar 2011

SIC Mr Cairns requested from Audit Scotland information relative to its complaint handling arrangements. Audit Scotland responded by providing Mr Cairns with a copy of its complaints booklet and an explanation. Following a review, as a result of which Mr Cairns was provided with further information, Mr Cairns remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that Audit Scotland had dealt with Mr Cairns’ request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by providing him with the relevant information it held. He did not require Audit Scotland to take any action.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 051 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433695

Kirklees Council v Information Commissioner and Pali Ltd: UTAA 10 Mar 2011

Information rights – Environmental information – general -‘ the Commissioner’s determination that all of the information requested must be made available by the Appellant to the Second Respondent for examination in situ without charge, and that the Appellant was in breach of its duties under the Regulations in declining to do so, was correct and is confirmed. For the avoidance of doubt, this only requires the Appellant to make available for examination information held by it, whether electronically or in physical form, from which a set of answers to the standard enquiries on form Con29R in relation to the property can be derived. It does not require the Appellant to conduct any more refined evaluation of any such information or its actual relevance (if any) to any such enquiry, or to provide any information in the form of actual or putative answers to the enquiries themselves. Nor does it require the disclosure of any personal data contrary to Regulation 13.’

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 104 (AAC), [2011] AACR 44

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Information Regulations 2004, Local Land Charges Act 1975 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Local Government, Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433518