Tag: Information

Cabinet Office (Decision Notice) FS50121390: ICO 14 May 2008

ICO The complainant requested a full list of all those who met with the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street in June 2005. The Cabinet Office disclosed some information but withheld the information relating to internal meetings with ministerial colleagues under sections 35 and 36. The Commissioner has investigated the application of both exemptions and finds that they are not engaged in relation to the information requested. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclosure the information withheld under section 35 and 36 within 35 calendar days of this notice. Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2008/0049) has been withdrawn.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50121390
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532619

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Apr 2008

ICO The complainant requested a report from the public authority that it had prepared on the charging of overseas visitors for treatment received under the NHS. Initially the public authority refused to disclose any of the report. However, it subsequently decided to release the report but withheld the names of the NHS Trusts which provided information to assist in its preparation. These names were withheld under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) (inhibition of the free and frank exchange of views), 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and 41 (information provided in confidence).The Commissioner determined that none of the exemptions were applicable to the information and ordered it to be disclosed to the complainant. He also found that the public authority breached section 17(1)(b) and (c), as it did not state in its initial refusal notice that section 41 was applicable to the information requested and did not explain why it applied.
FOI 17: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50120314
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532606

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Apr 2008

ICO The complainant made a number of requests to the Department of Health (the ‘DoH’) in connection with NHS Connecting for Health and the PACS (Picture Archiving and Communications System) procurement programme. These requests were made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’). Whilst most of the information was disclosed the DoH withheld the PACS Additional Services Catalogue for the Southern Cluster (the ‘Catalogue’) under sections 41 and 43. During the course of the investigation the DoH informed the Commissioner that it was now relying solely upon section 43. After considering the DoH’s arguments the Commissioner is not persuaded that the disclosure of the Catalogue would prejudice the commercial interests of either the DoH or the IT provider. Therefore the Commissioner has decided that section 43 is not engaged. Therefore the Commissioner found that the DoH had acted in breach of section 1 in that it had wrongly relied upon section 43 to withhold this information. The Commissioner also decided that the DoH had acted in breach of section 17 as it took longer than 20 working days to issue a refusal notice. The Commissioner requires the Catalogue to be disclosed.
FOI 43: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50114967
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532604

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Apr 2008

ICO The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’) to the Department of Health (the ‘DoH’) relating to a report published by the Standing Dental Advisory Committee in November 2003, entitled ‘Conscious Sedation in the Provision of Dental Care.’ The complainant requested copies of all minutes and correspondence relating to meetings and conclusions reached whilst this report was being drafted. The DoH withheld this information and cited section 35, arguing that the information related to the formulation or development of government policy. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that the information in question did not relate to the formulation or development of government policy, and therefore he does not believe that the exemption is engaged. However, he does believe that the withheld information contains some information that is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2). Therefore he believes that the information in question should be disclosed, with the above personal data redacted. The Commissioner also decided that the DoH had failed to meet the requirements of section 17 of the Act.
FOI 17: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50119242
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532605

Financial Services Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Apr 2008

The complainant made two requests for information to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) for information relating to a managing agency, his syndicate and Lloyd’s. The FSA refused to disclose the information requested in the first request under section 12 of the Act and the information requested in the second request under sections 44, 43, 40 and 31 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated and found that the FSA were correct to rely on section 12 to withhold the information requested in the first request. In relation to the second request the Commissioner has found that sections 44 and 40 are engaged but that sections 43 and 31 are not. The Commissioner requires the FSA to disclose the information withheld under sections 43 and 31 within 35 calendar days of this notice. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 44: Not upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50123488
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532607

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Mar 2008

ICO The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is that the Department of Health (the ‘Department’) did not deal with the complainant’s request in accordance with Part I of the Act in that it failed to comply with its obligations under section 1(1). The Commissioner found that the Department incorrectly applied the exemptions under sections 36(2)(c), 40(2) and 44 as a basis for withholding information pertaining to the number of 11,12 and 13 year olds that had abortions in England and Wales in 2003 and 2004.
FOI 36: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50069392
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532585

Oxfordshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Feb 2008

ICO The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Oxfordshire County Council (‘the Council’). The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. Whilst the Council did not raise the issue of the section 41 exemption, the Commissioner has decided that that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption would not be engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
FOI 43: Partly upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50155418
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532550

Northumbria Police (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Mar 2008

Police and criminal justice
The complainant sought reports made by officers of Northumbria Police concerning allegations he made against a District Judge. The complainant also requested copies of forensic reports and correspondence held by the police in relation to his complaint. The Commissioner has examined the requested information and had determined that it is the complainant’s personal data. Consequently the Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of the Act and Northumbria Police was therefore not in fact obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information by virtue of section 40(5) of the Act. The Commissioner considers that the police should have treated the request as a subject access request under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. He has completed a separate assessment under section 42 of that Act. The outcome of the assessment was communicated to the complainant in a separate letter dated 14 January 2008. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50157444
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532594

General Medical Council (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Feb 2008

The complainant requested information from the GMC in relation to a complaint and subsequent investigation and hearings concerning a named doctor. The GMC did not confirm or deny whether it had received any previous complaints against the doctor under sections 40(2) and 41. The GMC supplied some information, exempted in camera transcripts under sections 40(2) and 41 and claimed that the rest of the information requested was not held. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information withheld was correctly exempted under section 40(2) and that the remainder of the information is not held. However, the Commissioner has concluded that GMC breached section 17 of the Act because it failed to provide an adequate refusal notice within the 20 working days. No further steps are required. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50088137
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532526

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Jan 2008

The complainant requested from the Department for Constitutional Affairs (now Ministry of Justice) a copy of a review carried out by HM Magistrates’ Court Service Inspectorate into listing and case management in the Crown Court. The public authority took almost seven months to respond to the request during which time it was considering the public interest test in respect of the requested information. It eventually informed the complainant that it was refusing the request under section 36 of the Act and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner has considered the complaint and has found that whilst the exemption was engaged the public interest favoured disclosing the information. The Commissioner found that the public authority breached section 17 of the Act by failing to inform the complaint which exemption it believed applied to the requested information within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Commissioner also found that the public authority breached section 17 of the Act by failing to inform the complainant of its decision on the public interest within such a time as was reasonable in the circumstances.
FOI 17: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50117628
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532492

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Feb 2008

ICO The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of East Riding of Yorkshire Council (‘the Council’). The Council supplied the name of its investment manager however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
FOI 43: Partly upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50155387
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532524

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Feb 2008

ICO The complainant requested a copy of a waste management contract the council has agreed with an independent waste management contractor. The council withheld some sections of the contract on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of information) applied. The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is that the council has not dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with the Regulations in that some sections of the redacted information should have been supplied to the complainant. The exception to the duty to disclose the requested information was however applicable to other sections of the contract.
EIR 12.5.e: Not upheld

[2008] UKICO FER0066052
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532522

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Feb 2008

ICO The Complainant requested information on a contract signed by the public authority with a third party waste management company. He requested the price currently payable to the contractor for every tonne of waste dealt with – otherwise known as the ‘gate fee’. The council claimed that the information was exempt from disclosure under the exception in regulation 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner has considered this argument and his decision is that the exception is not applicable. As the decision is finely balanced the Commissioner also considered, on the alternative assumption that regulation 12(5)(e) does apply, whether the public interest in disclosing this information is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exception. His decision is that it is not.
EIR 12.5.e: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FER0079969
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532523

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Jan 2008

ICO The complainant sought disclosure of a contract agreed by the Department of Health for the provision of an electronic recruitment service for the NHS. The public authority initially refused to disclose the contract on the basis of the exemptions contained in sections 41 (confidential information) and 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the Act. It subsequently also sought to rely on sections 43(1) (trade secrets) and 44 (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner determined that none of the exemptions were applicable to the contract and ordered that it be disclosed to the complainant. He also found that the public authority had not complied with section 1 of the Act as, at the time of the request, it probably did not hold all of the contract and did not inform the complainant of this fact. In addition, it breached section 17(1)(b) and (c), as it failed to state in its refusal notice that sections 43(1) and 44 were applicable to the information requested nor explain why they applied.
FOI 1: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50083381
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532473

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Jan 2008

ICO The complainant requested a number of items relating to the maintenance of a caravan site owned by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (the ‘Council’). The Council refused the request in its entirety, citing the exemption under section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’). Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the Council disclosed the majority of the information requested to the complainant. However, the Council maintained that section 43 applied to two items of requested information and further, that the appropriate limit would be exceeded if the Council was to respond to one of these requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council would not exceed the appropriate limit in responding to the remaining requests and further, that the information is not exempt under section 43. The Council is therefore required to disclose the remaining information to the complainant.
FOI 43: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50090685
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532474

Royal Mail (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Dec 2009

ICO The complainant requested recent performance figures for first and second class mail. Specifically he was seeking figures which showed actual delivery times. Royal Mail confirmed that it held this information, but withheld it under section 43(2). During the investigation of the case the complainant confirmed that he was seeking access to figures for the 2007/08 financial year. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that although section 43(2) was engaged, the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. Therefore the information should be disclosed. In addition to this, the Commissioner also found that Royal Mail did not meet the requirements of sections 1(1)(b) or 10(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2010/0005 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50240406
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532448

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Dec 2009

ICO The complainant requested copies of all the submissions received by the public authority in relation to a public consultation on excluding overseas visitors from receiving free NHS primary medical services. The public authority refused the request under section 35 on the basis that the information related to the formulation or development of government policy. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority disclosed all of the submissions except for one which had been provided by the Home Office. The Commissioner has concluded that, whilst section 35 was engaged, the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. He has consequently ordered the disclosure of the withheld information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50189099
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532410

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Dec 2009

ICO The complainant requested copies of correspondence exchanged between The Prince of Wales and government ministers at the public authority over an eight month period. The complainant also requested a list and schedule of this correspondence. The public authority initially relied on the interaction of sections 37(1)(a) and 37(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any correspondence falling within the scope of the requests. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority confirmed to the complainant that it held correspondence falling within the scope of his requests but it considered this information to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 37(1)(a), 40(2) and 41(1). The public authority also stated that although it did not believe any of the information to be environmental information, if it was, it would be exempt on the basis of regulations 12(5)(d), 12(5)(f) and 13(1). The public authority also confirmed that it believed that a list and/or schedule of correspondence sent by The Prince of Wales would be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 37(1)(a), 40(2) and 41(1) of the Act and that a list and/or schedule of information sent to The Prince of Wales would be exempt on the basis of sections 37(1)(a) and 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that some of the correspondence is environmental information and thus should be considered under the EIR rather than the Act. For the information that is environmental the Commissioner has concluded that this is exempt on the basis of regulations 12(5)(f) or 13(1). For the correspondence that falls within the scope of the Act the Commissioner has concluded that this information is exempt on the basis of sections 41(1) or 37(1)(a). The Commissioner has also concluded that, if they where held, lists and/or schedules of correspondence sent by or to The Prince of Wales are exempt on the basis of these same exemptions and exceptions. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 37 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50080236
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532409

Electoral Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Dec 2009

The complainant requested information related to proposals to modify the system of dual reporting requirements for MPs, which requires them to give details of certain financial support received by them and their constituency associations both to the House of Commons Registrar of Members’ Interests and the Electoral Commission. The public authority provided much of the information but withheld other information, citing the exemptions contained in sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 42 of the Act. The Commissioner, in the absence of evidence that the opinion of the qualified person was reasonably arrived at, has decided that they were sufficiently overridingly reasonable so as to engage the exemption provided by section 36 and that the public interest favoured the maintenance of the exemption . The Commissioner also found that the section 42 exemption was engaged and the public interest favoured the maintenance of the exemption.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50129969
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532416

London Development Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Dec 2009

The complainant requested information regarding the amounts paid by the London Development Agency (the LDA) for certain sites and to whom. The LDA confirmed that it held information of the description specified but initially refused to disclose it under section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act). It later retracted its reliance on section 21 instead citing section 43(2) of the Act. During the course of the investigation the Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) found that the information is environmental information and asked the LDA to reconsider the request. The LDA maintained that the information is not environmental maintaining its reliance on section 43(2) of the Act. However, it stated that if the matter fell to be considered under the Environmental Information Regulations (the EIR) the information would be exempt under regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner found that regulations 12(5)(e) is not engaged. He therefore requires the LDA to now disclose the withheld information to the complaint.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50222273
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532433

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Dec 2009

The complainant requested details of whether the public authority had issued a caution under the Medicines Act 1968 to a named clinic. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority sought to rely on sections 30(3), 40(5) and 43(3) of the Act. The Commissioner subsequently determined that the public authority was correct to rely on section 30(3) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any relevant information. The Commissioner also identified some procedural breaches of the Act by the public authority related to a failure to initially identify that it was relying on sections 30(3), 40(5) and 43(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50212581
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532435

Department of The Environment Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Dec 2009

The complainant requested information from the Department of the Environment (the DoE) relating to an ongoing dispute between himself and the public authority. The DoE provided the complainant with some information, but advised that some information was exempt under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act). The DoE claimed it did not hold any further information relevant to the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the DoE reconsidered the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR), and argued that the withheld information was in fact exempt under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR, The DoE later revised this to claim that the information was exempt under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the DoE acted correctly when it considered the request under the EIR. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information comprises personal data relating to the complainant, and as such it is exempt under regulation 5(3) of the EIR. Therefore the Commissioner finds that the DoE failed to apply the correct exception to the withheld information. The Commissioner also finds that the DoE did provide the complainant with all the non-exempt information it holds. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0009 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FER0151857
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532411

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Dec 2009

ICO The complainant made an information request to the British Broadcasting Corporation for all documents relating to the Live Aid concert of 13 July 1985. The BBC voluntarily provided part of this information but refused to provide access to the remainder stating that it was outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act because it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information in question was held for the purpose of journalism, art and literature. Therefore the BBC was not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50278215
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532372