Tag: Information

Findlay v Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 18 Feb 2015

On 9 July 2014, Ms Findlay asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for copies of any email, letter or notes of any phone call about an event she had organised. Police Scotland disclosed some information to Ms Findlay, but did not provide her with copies of any documents. Following a review, Ms Findlay remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner found that Police Scotland failed to respond to Ms Findlay’s request for information in accordance with FOISA. She found that Police Scotland did not, in fact, hold any information falling within the scope of Ms Findlay’s request. In failing to tell her this, Police Scotland had failed to comply with section 17 of FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 025 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545621

Wealden District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 4 Oct 2016

The complainant has requested correspondence between the Council and consultants commissioned to produce its Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The Council provided some information, but withheld other information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR on the basis that it related to information still in the course of completion and unfinished documents. The Commissioner’s decision is that all the withheld information engages the exception; however in respect of a limited amount of that information the public interest favours its disclosure. This information has been identified in the confidential annex which accompanies this notice. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information identified in the confidential annexe. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(4)(d): Partly upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0618404
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.572917

Wealden District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 26 Jul 2017

The complainant has requested information from Wealden District Council (the council) concerning legal advice sought by the council regarding the 5 Year Housing Land Supply. The council refused to provide the majority of the requested information stating that it was legally privileged and disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice. It stated that regulation 12(5)(b) therefore applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) in this case, and has therefore complied with the EIR.
EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

[2017] UKICO FER0662407
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.593909

Wealden District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 20 Nov 2017

The complainant has requested the plan of a car-park made by a Community Officer whilst issuing Excess Charge Notices. Wealden District Council disclosed information in response. The complainant contested that the information provided was not that requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all relevant held information in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2017] UKICO FS50669332
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.602468

A and Scottish Court Service: SIC 26 Jan 2015

On 15 September 2014, Mr A asked the Scottish Court Service (the SCS) for a copy of a report to
the Parole Board for Scotland (the PBS), together with other information about this type of report.
The SCS informed Mr A that reports of this nature are only provided to the Scottish Prison Service
(the SPS) and he was not entitled to receive a copy. Following a review, Mr A remained
dissatisfied that he had not been provided with all the information he requested, or with statutory
information advising of his rights of review and appeal.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SCS had generally dealt with Mr A’s request for
information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA in withholding the report. The Commissioner also
found that the SCS failed to notify Mr A that it did not hold some of the information falling within
part (ii) of his request.
The Commissioner also identified failures in the content of the initial refusal notice and the review
outcome issued by the SCS, but did not require the SCS to take any action.

[2015] ScotIC 012 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542631

Turner (OBO Macclesfield Express) v Icnformation Commissioner (Dismissed Environmental Information Regulations 2004): FTTGRC 13 Nov 2014

Dismissed Environmental Information Regulations 2004 – Environmental Information Regulations:
r 13 – personal data
r 12(5)(b) adverse effect upon inquiries of a disciplinary nature
r 12(5)(d) confidentiality of proceedings

Fiona Henderson (Judge)
[2014] UKFTT 2014 – 0009 (GRC)
Bailii
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540446

City of London Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 25 Jun 2018

The complainant has requested information about a named police investigation. City of London Police (CoLP) would neither confirm nor deny holding the information, citing the exemption at section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that CoLP was correct to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request by virtue of section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

[2018] UKICO fs50725620
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.621217

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 4 Nov 2015

ICO The complainant requested access to the Home Office guidance to its UK Border Force officers. The Home Office failed to respond substantively to this request and the Commissioner finds that, in so doing, it breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request. The Home Office 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50596914
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.554743

Mclean and Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body: SIC 7 Oct 2014

On 6 January 2014, Mr McLean asked the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (the SPCB) for information relating to a minute of the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government and Regeneration Committee (LGandRC).
Where the SPCB considered Mr Mclean’s email to contain valid information requests, it responded
by stating that it did not hold the information requested. Following a review, Mr McLean remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SPCB had properly responded to Mr McLean’s requests for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.

[2014] ScotIC 214 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.538109

Hutcheon and Scottish Ministers: SIC 31 Jul 2014

Scottish Edge awards – On 21 November 2013, Mr Hutcheon asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information on the development and setting up of the Scottish Edge awards. Following a review, in which the Ministers disclosed some information, Mr Hutcheon remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Ministers had been entitled to withhold some of the information. She required the Ministers to disclose the remainder to Mr Hutcheon.

[2014] ScotIC 169 – 2014
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.538057

Dr J Wallace Hinton and Scottish Public Services Ombudsman: SIC 17 Jul 2014

SIC Complaint investigation – On 8 October 2013, Dr Hinton asked the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (the SPSO) for information sent to and received from Glasgow City Council during a complaint investigation. The SPSO withheld the information under section 26(a) of FOISA, on the basis that its disclosure was prohibited by other legislation.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner founds that the SPSO was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 26(a) of FOISA (on the basis of the statutory prohibition) and regulation 10(5)(d) of the EIRs (on grounds of confidentiality). She found that some of the information was environmental information and therefore should have been handled under the EIRs.

[2014] ScotIC 158 – 2014
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535267

Northumberland County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Oct 2012

The complainant requested information from Northumberland County Council (the Council) about a particular contract for which it invited tenders. In response to this request the Council disclosed various pieces of information including the original invitation to tender, the evaluation scores of both the tenders it had received and the price of the winning tender. However, it withheld two documents on the basis of section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act on the basis that their disclosure would be likely to breach the commercial interests of the company which won the contract. The Commissioner is satisfied that both documents are exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exemption and, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50447357
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.529944

Northumberland County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Nov 2013

The complainant requested information relating to a specific planning application. Although Northumberland County Council provided him with some information, the complainant’s view was that it held more information which it had not disclosed. The Information Commissioner finds that the information requested constitutes environmental information and was correctly considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). He has concluded on the balance of probabilities that, other than the information it had already provided to the complainant, the Council did not hold any further information relevant to the request. The Council, however, breached regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR in failing to make available the information it held within 20 working days of receipt of the request. It also breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to provide the internal review outcome within 40 working days, instead taking 421 working days. As all the information held has now been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FER0484296
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.528913

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 22 Mar 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to whether a named high profile individual held a British passport. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) 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 FS50612473
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.561773

Gateshead Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Oct 2006

ICO The complainant asked the public authority for information which it held about the British National Party and the Tyne and Wear Anti – Fascist Association (TWAFA). In its response the Council said that it held no information about the BNP. It made available to the complainant all information held on TWAFA but redacted the names and contact details of individuals and groups, citing the exemption contained in section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Council also withheld three documents because it considered that the information contained within them was exempt by virtue of section 42 of the Act. However, having reviewed the position, the Council later provided two of these documents to the complainant. The Commissioner has decided that sections 38 and 42 are engaged in this case and that the public interest lies in favour of maintaining those exemptions. He has also decided that section 40 is engaged in respect of certain personal information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 38 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50066289
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533581

Westminster City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Sep 2006

ICO On 6 September 2005 the complainant requested, under the Freedom of Information Act, information related to a possible change in planning use in Westminster’s Dolphin Square and the Dolphin Square Hotel. The public authority did not respond to the request until 9 January 2006. Whilst the public authority dealt with the request under the Freedom of Information Act, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the information was of a predominantly environmental nature and that the request should have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations. Consequently the Commissioner finds that, in dealing with the request, the public authority breached regulation 5.(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FER01020787
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533570

Office of Government Commerce (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Oct 2006

ICO This Decision Notice has been issued against the OGC following communications between the Commissioner, HM Treasury and the OGC, subsequent to which it has been accepted that the information requested by the complainant in the case of FS50083104 was in fact a request to the OGC and not HM Treasury. The Decision Notice issued against the Treasury in the case of FS50083104 has therefore now been withdrawn and the Commissioner substitutes this one against the OGC. This Decision Notice explains the reasoning behind the Commissioner’s decision.The complainant made a request to know the traffic light status awarded to Gateway Reviews of the Identity cards programme which had been carried out by the OGC. The OGC refused to provide the information on the grounds that it related to the formulation and development of government policy (s.35) and that disclosure would prejudice the exercise of the OGC’s audit functions (s.33).The Commissioner’s decision is that the public interest lies in the release of the information and that its release will not prejudice the exercise of the OGC’s audit functions.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 33 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50132936
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533590

Legal Secretariat of The Law Officers (Decision Notice) FS50064590: ICO 7 Jul 2006

The complainant requested information relating to the advice given by the Attorney General to the Government on the legality of military action in Iraq. The public authority refused to supply the information citing the exemptions in sections 27, 25 and 42 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated this case together with a number of other complaints about requests for similar information, and the investigation resulted in an Enforcement Notice being served on the LSLO on 22 May 2006. This ordered the LSLO to produce a Disclosure Statement setting out information within the scope of the request which led to or supported the conclusions made public by the Attorney General in the 17 March 2003 statement. A Disclosure Statement which met the Commissioner’s requirements was annexed to the Enforcement Notice. The Commissioner has decided that in failing to supply the information which led to or supported the Attorney General’s conclusions (except that exempt under section 27) the public authority failed to comply with section 1(1) and 10. However, the Disclosure Statement attached to the Enforcement Notice met the Commissioner’s requirements for disclosure and therefore he had not ordered the LSLO to take any further remedial steps in this Disclosure Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50064590
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533510

Legal Secretariat of The Law Officers (Decision Notice) FS50063472: ICO 7 Jul 2006

The complainant requested information relating to the advice given by the Attorney General to the Government on the legality of military action in Iraq, which the public authority refused to supply citing the exemptions in sections 35 and 42 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated this case together with a number of other complaints about requests for similar information, and the investigation resulted in an Enforcement Notice served on the LSLO on 22 May 2006. This ordered the LSLO to produce a Disclosure Statement setting out information within the scope of the request which led to or supported the conclusions made public by the Attorney General in the 17 March 2003 Statement. A Disclosure Statement which met the Commissioner’s requirements was annexed to the Enforcement Notice. The Commissioner has decided that in failing to supply the information which led to or supported the Attorney General’s conclusions (except that exempt under section 27) the public authority failed to comply with section 1(1) and 10. However, the Disclosure Statement attached to the Enforcement Notice met the Commissioner’s requirements for disclosure and therefore he had not ordered the LSLO to take any further remedial steps in this Decision Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50063472
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533509

Legal Secretariat of The Law Officers (Decision Notice) FS50069105: ICO 7 Jul 2006

The complainant requested information relating to the advice given by the Attorney General to the Government on the legality of military action in Iraq. The public authority refused to supply the information citing the exemptions in sections 27, 25 and 42 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated this case together with a number of other complaints about requests for similar information, and the investigation resulted in an Enforcement Notice being served on the LSLO on 22 May 2006. This ordered the LSLO to produce a Disclosure Statement setting out information within the scope of the request which led to or supported the conclusions made public by the Attorney General in the 17 March 2003 Statement. A Disclosure Statement which met the Commissioner’s requirements was annexed to the Enforcement Notice. The Commissioner has decided that in failing to supply the information which led to or supported the Attorney General’s conclusions (except that exempt under section 27) the public authority failed to comply with section 1(1) and 10. However, the Disclosure Statement attached to the Enforcement Notice met the Commissioner’s requirements for disclosure and therefore he had not ordered the LSLO to take any further remedial steps in this Disclosure Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50069105
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533511

Lancashire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Jun 2006

ICO The information requested related to the policing of fans during a football match including any note book entries about the expulsion of two people from the football ground. The Police held no records of this incident but identified the operational order as containing other information on the policing of the match. The request under section 31 (Law Enforcement) on the basis that disclosure would prejudice the policing of future matches. The complainant was concerned with the time taken to deal with his request and that he had not been informed of any internal complaints procedure or of his right to complain on the Commissioner. He was also concerned that the operational order had been withheld. The Commissioner found that there had been some procedural errors and that although some information in the operational order, such as intelligence on football crime and the deployment of police during the match was exempt from disclosure, other information in the operational order should have been released.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50123769
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533460

Cabinet Office (Decision Notice) FS50062881: ICO 7 Jul 2006

The complainant requested information related to the legal advice provided by the Attorney General to the Prime Minister on the legality of military action in Iraq. The public authority advised the complainant that some of the information requested was not held but was exempt under sections 35 and 42 of the Act. The Commissioner has decided that the public authority failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) within the 20 working day deadline and in doing so it contravened section 10(1). However, as the public authority subsequently confirmed that no information relevant to the first two parts of the request was held the Commissioner has not ordered any remedial steps in this regard. The Commissioner has also decided that the public authority appropriately applied the exemptions in section 35 and 42 and determined that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemptions. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50062881
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533482

Cabinet Office (Decision Notice) FS50079971: ICO 7 Jul 2006

The complainant requested information regarding the legal advice provided to government about the legality of war in Iraq. The Cabinet Office confirmed that information relevant to the first two sections of the request was not held. It confirmed that material relevant to the third part of the request was held but that it was exempt under sections 35 and 42 of the Act. The Commissioner has decided that the public authority failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) within 20 working days and therefore it breached section 10(1) of the Act. As the Cabinet Office has now complied with section 1(1) (a) the Commissioner has not ordered any remedial steps in this regard, and the Commissioner has also found that the public authority appropriately determined that the public interest favoured maintained the exemptions in sections 35 and 42. Therefore the Cabinet Office has complied with the Act in refusing to supply the information subject to those exemptions.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50079971
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533483

Powys County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Mar 2006

The complainant sought access to a letter sent to the Council by the headteacher of his son’s school. The Council released the bulk of the letter and provided summaries of other parts, but also redacted some sections, applying sections 30, 31, 40 and 41 of the Act to the withheld information. The Commissioner has now decided that neither section 30 nor section 31 applied to any of the information, and noted that these sections could not be applied to any of the information, and noted that these sections could not be applied simultaneously. He did however find that all the withheld information constituted personal data about third parties, the release of which would contravene at least one of the data protection principles. As a results section 40 did apply to the withheld information. In view of this, section 41 was not considered. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50066311
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533386

Department for Constitutional Affairs FS50067992: ICO 12 Apr 2006

ICO (Decision Notice) The complainant requested copies of any judgements that may have been made relating to the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003. The request was made to Her Majesty’s Courts Service, which is an executive agency of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The Department did not issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of the Act, and the Commissioner has judged that it did not handle the request in accordance with Part 1 of the Act, particularly with regard to the time for compliance outlined in section 10. During the course of the Commissioner’s review the Department for Constitutional Affairs applied section 12 of the Act, which permits an exemption from the duty to comply with a request where the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. In light of this fact the Commissioner ordered that the Courts Service must take steps to issue a refusal notice under section 17 of the Act within the time for compliance specified in the Decision Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 22 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 11 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50067992
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533401

Her Majestys Revenue and Customs (Decision Notice): ICO 24 May 2006

ICO A request was made for copies of documents held in the department’s files relating to a current enquiry into the corporation tax position of the company the complainant was requesting. The department refused to release the information, citing the exemption provided by section 31(1)(d) (Law Enforcement). The Commissioner has agreed that section 31(1)(d) was applied correctly to the information sought by the complainant, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50089784
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533426

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 4 May 2006

ICO The complainant requested a list of NHS suppliers together with fax and telephone numbers. Although the list of NHS suppliers was provided, the fax and telephone numbers were refused on the grounds that the information comprised personal data and that disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act. The Commissioner contacted the public authority which advised him that the true ground for refusal was that this information was not held by them, but rather by a private sector contractor. The Commissioner was not persuaded that the information was not held by the public authority. Moreover he was not persuaded that disclosure of the requested information would breach the Data Protection Act. He therefore upheld the complaint.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50063717
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533421