Tag: Information

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

Department for Work and Pensions (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Feb 2006

The Complainant sent a request for information to the CSA on 12 May 2005, asking for certain legislation, guidance and policy documents. Following the intervention of the Information Commissioner the complainant received a response on 9 December 2005. The Commissioner has therefore decided that the CSA breached the Act by not responding within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50102162
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533353

Hackney London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Jan 2006

ICO The complainant submitted requests on 12 April, 19 May and 27 May 2005, asking for information about the standards that apply to deem that a vehicle is travelling in a bus lane. Two of these requests were delivered by hand, while one was posted. The Council stated that they did not receive any of the requests. The information requested was provided to the complainant after the Commissioner forwarded to the Council a copy of the request on 12 April. The Commissioner is of the opinion that the requests were received by the Council, especially in view of the fact that two were hand-delivered. The Commissioner therefore concludes that the request, dated 12 April 2005 was received and that the Council did not respond until 12 October 2005. On this basis the Council failed to respond within the prescribed period of 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50078394
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533344

Department for Work and Pensions (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Mar 2006

The complainant made a request on 13/10/05 for a Job Centre Plus ‘Standard Operating Model’. The public authority asked for clarification of the request, but when the complainant reiterated his request without any clarification they provided the information on 24/11/05. As the Job Centre was able to provide the information without receiving clarification they should have responded within the 20 working day time limit. On the following day the complainant sent a further letter providing further clarification which the Job Centre treated as a new request, and responded on the 29/12/05.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50094591
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533375

Llandudno Town Council (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Dec 2005

ICO The complainant requested information regarding the costs and receipts of all matters to do with the Town Twinning arrangements for the year 1 April 2004 until 31 March 2005. The Town Council provided this information but did so outside the 20 working day time limit.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2005] UKICO FS50083727
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533326

Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Dec 2005

ICO The complainant requested information from the Trust relating to the date on which its policy for handling vexatious complaints was introduced, and also the location of other information provided was not that which he had requested. The Commissioner has found the response of the public authority did provide the complainant with the information requested. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
FOI 10: Not upheld

[2005] UKICO FS50070880
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533330

Cardiff Council (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Dec 2005

ICO On 28/01/05 the complainant requested documents relating to the National School for Children with Cerebral Palsy. In its response, dated 07/03/05, CCC stated that it was necessary to consider the public interest in relation to this request, citing the exemption at section 36 of the Act, and indicated that it expected to be able to provide the outcome of their consideration of the public interest by 18/03/05. CCC neither advised the complainant of a decision nor released the information by 13/03/05 and still has not done so at the date of issuing the Decision Notice, despite the Commissioner’s intervention. The Commissioner requires CCC to provide the complainant with either the information requested or a notice detailing why it is in the public interest to withhold or not confirm whether they hold the information.
FOI 1: Upheld

[2005] UKICO FS50073291
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533322

Department for Work and Pensions (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Nov 2005

The complainant made a number of requests for information from the Child Support Agency (CSA) – part of the Department of Work and Pensions – on three separate dates. The complainant alleged that the CSA failed to provide him with all the information requested and that the information was not provided within 20 working days. The Commissioner has decided that two of these requests were in fact requests for his own personal data and therefore exempt under section 40(1) of the Act. A request was also made for a copy of the CSA’s publication scheme which the Commissioner has decided is accessible by other means and therefore exempt under section 21 of the Act. The Commissioner also considers that one of the questions was not a valid FOI request. However, the CSA did fail to respond to one of the complainant’s requests within 20 working days.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2005] UKICO FS50065750
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533288

Cardiff Council (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Nov 2005

ICO The Complainant requested information relating to a landfill site on 4/3/05. Even after the intervention of this Office, the Council has not responded to the request. The Decision Notice requires the Council to respond to the request within 30 days of the Decision Notice.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2005] UKICO FS50071182
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533284

Ministry of Defence (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Nov 2005

ICO The complainant requested the logbooks of an ex-serviceman. There were two aspects to the complaint. Firstly, the complainant felt that the initial response by the MoD was ambiguous and did not comply with the duty to confirm or deny. The MoD confirmed both to the complainant and the Commissioner that the intention of their statement was to communicate a denial that the information was held. With regard to this aspect of the complaint, the Commissioner was satisfied that the MoD did comply with the Act. The second aspect to the complaint related to the veracity of the MoD’s denial that the information was held. The MoD explained why the information was not held and the Commissioner was satisfied with the steps taken by the MoD to ascertain whether the information was held. The Decision Notice found that the MoD was not in breach of Section 1.
FOI 1: Not up

[2005] UKICO FS50074781
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533306

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Nov 2005

ICO The applicant requested information regarding the Hornsea Rail Trail and received a partial response within the statutory period of twenty working days. When the complainant pursued the failure of ERYC to provide all of the information, the request was widened further on two occasions. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, ERYC provided a full response to the information request, however the Commissioner has decided that by virtue of the fact that they failed to provide the information requested within twenty working days a breach has occurred.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2005] UKICO FS50074966
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533292

Cardiff Council (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Oct 2005

ICO On 05/01/05 the complainant requested documents relating to the consideration of a particular employee’s position within CCC, that employee’s employment tribunal and the outcomes of that tribunal. In their response, CCC stated that it was necessary to consider the public interest in relation to this request and indicated that they expected to be able to provide the outcome of their consideration of the public interest by 11/02/05. No reference was made to the particular exemption(s) the public interest test was being applied to CCC had neither advised the complainant of a decision nor released the information by the 11/02/05 and still had not done so at the date of issuing the Decision Notice. The Commissioner requires CCC to provide the complainant with either the information requested or a notice detailing why it is in the public interest to withhold or not confirm whether they hold it.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld

[2005] UKICO FS50069730
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533265

Standards for England (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Aug 2005

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the investigation of a complaint about him. The Standards Board refused this request on the grounds the information consisted of personal data, some relating to the complainant and some relating to third parties, and that in either case disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act. Having conducted an internal review, the Board also cited additional exemptions, namely those covering information subject to legal professional privilege and information whose disclosure is prohibited by law. The Commissioner considered that the public authority had handled the request correctly and that it was entitled to rely upon the exemptions cited. The complainant has lodged an appeal.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2005] UKICO FS50064699
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533252

Guildford Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Aug 2005

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the dates on which recycling boxes were delivered to his neighbours and alleged that the information was provided late and was incomplete. The Commissioner’s decision was that the information was not provided within the statutory time period, but the Commissioner was satisfied with the assurance of the Council that all relevant information had been provided.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2005] UKICO FS50071067
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533244

Camden Council (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Oct 2005

ICO The complainant requested a record of activity relating to a parking ticket and an explanation of what LBC inferred from it. LBC has assured the Commissioner that the Parking Attendant pocket book notes constitute the record of activity, a point initially disputed by the complainant, and a letter sent to the complainant on 20 January 2005 covered the second part of his request. The Parking Attendant’s notes were provided to the complainant on 23 March 2005, outside the 20 working days allowed.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2005] UKICO FS50069224
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533264

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Sep 2007

ICO The complainant requested information from East Riding of Yorkshire Council (the Council) relating to its health and safety policy and procedures, particularly where the policies and procedures address how risk is assessed and managed. The Council refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it considered it to be vexatious under section 14 of the Act (vexatious or repeated requests). The Commissioner found that, given the history of the correspondence between the complainant and the Council regarding the issue of risk assessment, the request in question would impose a significant burden on the public authority in terms of expense and distraction and that it is designed to cause disruption and annoyance, has the effect of harassing the public authority and could be fairly characterised as obsessive. Therefore he decided that the Council was correct to apply the exemption under section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner also found that the Council had failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, and therefore had breached section 17(5) of the Act (refusal of request). The Council is not required to take any further steps in respect of this complaint. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2007/0109 has been dismissed.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50154968
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533063

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50150314: ICO 16 Oct 2007

ICO The complainant asked the public authority for the audio record of a court hearing in which he had been a party. The public authority withheld the information on the basis of sections 32 and 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner decided that neither section was engaged and that the public authority should therefore disclose the requested information to the complainant. He also decided that the public authority had delayed in providing the complainant with its refusal notice, in breach of breach of section 17(1) of the Act, and also in providing its internal review decision. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50150314
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533098

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50118883: ICO 16 Oct 2007

ICO The complainant, through his solicitors, asked the public authority for the audio record of his trial. The public authority withheld the information on the basis of sections 32 and 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner decided that neither section was engaged and that the public authority should therefore disclose the requested information to the complainant. He also decided that the public authority had delayed in providing the complainant with its refusal notice, in breach of section 17(1) of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50118883
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533097

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Oct 2007

ICO The complainant requested details of the gross remuneration paid to the 20 highest paid ‘entertainers’ on the BBC for the previous three years. The BBC refused to provide the information on the basis it was held for the purposes of journalism, art and literature. The BBC also explained that even if this request fell within the scope of the Act, it would need to clarify with the complainant what he meant by the phrase ‘entertainer’ as it was not a term used by the BBC. Having considered the purposes for which the information is held the Commissioner is satisfied that it falls within the scope of the Act. Consequently, the Commissioner has decided that the BBC should contact the complainant in order to clarify his request in line with its duty under section 16 of the Act.
FOI 16: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50070467
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533081

Office of Government Commerce (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jun 2007

ICO The complainant requested the RAG status of any government projects currently under Gateway Review and the name of the projects. The RAG status refers to a projects status i.e. Red, Amber or Green. The OGC confirmed it held two stage zero and one stage one Gateway Review in relation to the Government ID Card Project but refused to disclose the RAG status of the project as the information requested was subject to section 33 ‘Audit Functions’ and section 35, ‘Formulation of government policy’ of the Act and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner’s review of the application of sections 33 and 35 found that the exemption under section 33 was engaged as the OGC has demonstrated that release of the information would, or would be likely to prejudice the exercise of any of its audit functions but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner found that section 35 was engaged but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner’s decision is to uphold the complaint and order the OGC to disclosure the requested information within 35 calendar days from date of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 33 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50111129
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532967

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Apr 2007

The complainant requested information about the tendering process for a research project including the successful submission. The Commissioner found that some of the information that the complainant believed should have been disclosed was not held at the time the request was made or had in fact had been released. Other information had been withheld under section 43.The Commissioner found that the refusal notices issued by the public authority failed to adequately explain the reasons why the exemption was engaged and why the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. This constitutes breaches of section 17. The public authority also failed to provide any of the information which it considered was not exempt within the statutory time limit, this constitutes a breach of the section10. In relation to the small amount of information that was withheld under section 43, the Commissioner found that the information, including that detailing the rates charged for specific elements of the project was not commercially sensitive and so should have been released. This constitutes a beach of section 1.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50101105
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532901

General Medical Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Apr 2007

The complainant requested details of the number of complaints to the General Medical Council against a particular doctor and the dates of those complaints. The request was refused, except for the details of a complaint which had already been disclosed at a public hearing. The public authority claimed that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) as it was the personal data of the doctor in question and that to release the information would breach the data protection principles. The Commissioner found that the exemption contained in section 40 was correctly applied and that therefore the public authority was right to withhold the information requested.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50144027
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532906

Department for Transport (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Apr 2007

The complainant requested information relating to the business interests of David Mills, the husband of Tessa Jowell MP. The public authority responded to this request stating that it did not hold the requested information, but the complainant disputed this. Following investigations, the Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority does not hold any information covered by the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the Act.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50146548
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532902

Her Majestys Revenue and Customs (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Mar 2007

Central government
The complainant requested documentation held by HMRC to support its interpretation of a particular piece of legislation. HMRC responded to confirm it held information but that it was exempt from disclosure as the documentation was legal advice and so section 42 of the Act, ‘legal professional privilege’, was engaged. HMRC also argued that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner investigated HMRC’s application of section 42 and found that the information requested is legal advice and is therefore covered by the exemption and that the public interest does favour maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC dealt with the request in accordance with the Act and require no steps to be taken.
FOI 42: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50133903
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532884