Tag: Information

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Nov 2009

ICO The complainant requested a number of pieces of information regarding the consultation document, ‘Arrangements under Part IX of the Drug Tariff for the Provision of stoma and incontinence appliances’ and related services ‘to Primary Care. Revised Proposals. Clarifications.’ The Department of Health provided some information, but withheld the rest, citing sections 21, 41 and 43(2). The complainant complained to the Commissioner in regard to the DoH’s use of sections 41 and 43(2), and also queried whether it held further information. During the investigation of the case the DoH disclosed some of the previously withheld information. However, it continued to withhold some information under sections 41 and 43(2). It also informed the Commissioner that it was seeking to rely upon sections 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i) to withhold some of the information. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that the information was exempt from disclosure under sections 41, 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i). However, the Commissioner also found that the DoH had not met the requirements of sections 10 and 17.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50196759
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532313

Office of Government Commerce (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Jun 2009

ICO The complainant requested the traffic light status (RAG), project titles and recommendations of gateway reviews carried out in the previous year by a number of government departments. The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) disclosed all but one of the project titles and gateway numbers of the current projects. The OGC refused to disclose the name of one project, its RAG status and recommendations under section 23(1), 33(1)(b) and 35(1)(a) of the Act. The OGC also refused to disclose the RAG status and recommendations of the other projects under section 33 and 35. The Commissioner has investigated and found that all the exemptions are engaged. However, he also finds that in relation to section 33 and 35 the public interest in maintaining the exemptions does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The OGC must disclose the information withheld under sections 33 and 35 within 35 calendar days of this notice. The Commissioner has also concluded that in failing to make available to the complainant information to which he is entitled the OGC has breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 33 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50130293
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532069

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Dec 2011

ICO The complainant asked the Department of Health (DOH) to provide: ‘electronic copies of the ranked hospital level data for Rounds 5, 6 and 7 of the National Sentinel Stroke Audit as published to date, both the organisational and clinical components. Note that these requests are not for the data in the published Public Reports which place individual hospitals and hospital trusts into quartiles according to the scores attained in the assessment criteria.’
The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the DOH has failed to comply with its obligations under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA as it informed the complainant that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner considers that the requested information is held by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Agency (HQIP) and/or the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) on behalf of the DOH under section 3(2)(b) of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) requires the DOH to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the complainant with the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice under section 17 of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50382984
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531157

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50275939: ICO 22 Jul 2010

ICO The complainant requested background information relating to Lord Carter’s report – ‘Securing the Future: Proposals for the efficient and sustainable use of custody in England and Wales’. The complainant was directed to some information available in the public domain. In relation to the remainder of the information it held that fell within the scope of the request, the public authority cited the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) (information relating to the formulation or development of government policy). The Commissioner finds that this exemption was engaged, but that the public interest in the maintenance of this exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure and that, in failing to disclose this information within 20 working days of receipt of the request, the public authority failed to comply with sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with the requirements of sections 10(1) and 17(1) in that it did not respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The public authority is required to disclose the information in question to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50275939
Bailii
England and Wales

Information, Prisons

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531561

Haringey London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Sep 2009

ICO The complainant requested information from Haringey Council (‘the Council’) relating to an investigation carried out by the Councils Monitoring Officer into allegations the complainant had made regarding the Chief Executive of the Council. The Council initially stated that the request was for personal data about the complainant must be treated as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 but altered it’s position following an internal review of the case when it stated that the information is exempt under section 36 and section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner has reviewed the requested information and has decided that the Council correctly applied section 36 in this case. During the investigation the Council retracted it’s reliance on the exemption at section 42 and disclosed the information previously withheld under that exemption. The Council also committed a number of procedural breaches but the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50202969
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Data Protection Act 1998
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532172

Cardiff Council (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Apr 2009

ICO The complainant made a request for a petition supporting a proposed footpath submitted to Cardiff County Council (‘the Council’) by a local Councillor. This was refused under section 40 of the Act on the grounds that the information requested constituted personal data of which the applicant was not the subject, and that disclosure of the information would breach one of the data protection principles. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested is ‘environmental information’ within the definition in Regulation 1(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner is satisfied that regulation 13 (which relates to third party personal data) is engaged in respect of the information, and that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. However the Commissioner further finds that the Council was in breach of regulation 14(3)(a) in that it failed to apply an exception under the EIR and regulation 11(4) in that the Council failed to provide the outcome of its internal review within 40 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50199873
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532013

Westminster City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Sep 2011

ICO The complainant wrote to Westminster City Council (the council) and requested information in the following terms: ‘I need a list of motorcycle parking bays (the addresses where they are located) so that I can plan my trips into town. I found this site: http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/maps/fmn-form.cfm?maplayers=25 That search facility is no use to me. I need to see all the places where I can park and then I can plan my trip accordingly. The web page obviously requires a full list to function but that list has not been made available. Could you either supply the list to me or point me to the place where it is already available.’ The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 21 of the FOIA to the complainant’s requests. The Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) does not require the council to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0235 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50362050
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.530922

Islington Council (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Jun 2009

EW The complainant requested the criteria used by the Council’s contractor to reward Parking Attendants and also for ‘statistical’ information concerning individual Parking Attendants relating to the rewards over the last 12 months. The complainant made it clear that he did not wish any individuals to be identified. It was not clear from the Council’s initial responses whether it held the criteria but it did state that it did not hold any statistical information relating to how individual Parking Attendants had met the criteria. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council stated that it had not held the information requested by the complainant at the time of his request and that it did not believe its contractor held this information on its behalf. The Commissioner investigated this position and was satisfied that the information was not held at the time of the request either by the Council or by the Council’s contractor on its behalf. The Commissioner also found that the Council breached section 10(1) and 1(1)(a).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50162002
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532059

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50285971: ICO 2 Nov 2010

The complainant asked the Ministry of Justice (the ‘public authority’) to provide information relating to representations made by The Queen or the Royal Household regarding UK Freedom of Information law. The public authority withheld the disputed information on the basis of the exemptions at sections 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), 37(1)(a) (communications with Her Majesty), 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commission’s decision is that the exemption in section 37(1)(a) is engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs that in disclosure. Therefore, he has not considered the applicability of the other exemptions. The public authority’s handling of the request also resulted in a breach of a procedural requirement of the Act as identified in this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 37 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50285971
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531793

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50272729: ICO 10 Nov 2010

ICO The complainant asked the Ministry of Justice to provide information relating to an offender’s criminal convictions. The public authority initially neither confirmed nor denied (‘NCND’) holding any information citing the exemption at section 40(5) (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority introduced section 12 (the ‘appropriate limit’) Following further inquiries it subsequently claimed that it did not in fact hold any of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority holds no information. The complaint is not upheld.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50272729
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531792

Gedling Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Nov 2010

ICO The complainant submitted a request to Gedling Borough Council for information from environmental records held on a property in Mapperley. The Council confirmed that it held no information in relation to the complainant’s request. The complaint contends that whilst the Council responded within 20 working days, it did not respond ‘as soon as possible’. The Commissioner has investigated and has found no evidence to suggest that the Council did not comply with the complainant’s request as soon as possible. He therefore finds that the Council has complied with regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner notes that the Council did not specify the exception it relied upon in refusing the request and therefore finds a breach of regulation 14(3)(a). He does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FER0348473
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531773

Land Registry FS50459233: ICO 18 Dec 2012

ICO (Decision Notice) The complainant requested the results of a search of the ‘Index of Proprietors’ Names’ in respect of a named individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was excluded from confirming or denying it held the information requested by virtue of section 40(5)(b)(i) FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50459233
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.530087

Royal Holloway University of London (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Dec 2012

ICO The complainant has asked Royal Holloway University of Londonfor information about the membership of a University Redundancy Sub-Committee. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA as it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. As a response has now been provided the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50454315
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.530107

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested information about complaints raised in relation to the removal procedures imposed on the parent of a British child. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has applied section 14(1) appropriately. However, he considers that the Home Office has breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to carry out any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50496058
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.528992

Salford City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 28 May 2012

ICO The complainant requested information on the council’s costs for outsourcing to either Barristers Chambers or Solicitors at Employment Tribunals for all Council Staff (including Teaching Staff) between 1st August 2000 and the 31 October 2010. The council did not respond to that request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached the requirements of section 1(1)(a) in that it has not responded to the complainant stating whether or not it holds the information. It has also breached section 1(1)(b) in that it has not communicated the requested information to her or applied a valid exemption to the information in response to the request. The Commissioner has also decided that the council breached the requirements of section 10(1) of the Act in that it did not respond to the complainant complying with the requirements of section 1 within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to respond to the complainant’s request as required by section 1 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50434953
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.529523

Cardiff Council (Decision Notice): ICO 15 May 2012

ICO The complainant requested information regarding Cardiff City Transport Services Limited, a private limited company which is wholly owned by Cardiff Council and 2 Travel Group PLC. The complainant has not received a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request and therefore breached its obligations under section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to state what information it holds within the scope of the complainant’s request; and communicate the information it holds to the complainant and/or issue a refusal notice in respect of all or the parts of the information it intends to withhold in accordance with section 17 of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50437937
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.529456

Cambridge City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested an agreement between Brookgate and Network Rail. Cambridge City Council confirmed that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridge City Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1) of the EIR. It correctly confirmed that the requested information is not held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50506857
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.528954

Cornwall Council (Local Government): ICO 26 Apr 2018

The complainant has requested information about refuse and recycling collections in Cornwall against individual addresses and in a specific format. The Council initially provided unique property reference numbers (UPRNs), a link to its rubbish, recycling and waste webpage and waste depot dates. However the Council withheld specific addresses associated with the UPRNs under section 21 of the FOIA (information reasonably accessible by other means), as these could be obtained from Ordnance Survey (OS). The Council also applied section 43 of the FOIA (commercial interests exemption). The Commissioner asked the Council to review its response under the EIR and the Council then maintained it was commercial information under regulation 12(5)(e) and it was not in the public interest to release it. The Council also maintained that it did not hold the collection database as it said that this information was held by a contractor. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cornwall Council has not provided sufficient evidence to support the engagement of Regulation 12(5)(e). She also finds that the Council does hold information about what type of refuse is collected from individual addresses and when, and breached regulation 3 by not supplying it to the complainant. She also finds that the Council has breached regulation 6 by failing to supply the information in the format requested, or explaining to the complainant why this cannot be done. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information to which Regulation 12(5)(e) has been applied; disclose the collection data about what type of refuse is collected and when, from individual addresses, as used by the Council to update its own website; and under Regulation 9 (advice and assistance), provide the complainant with details of the exact format the collection data is held by Council to ascertain if this meets his requirements or can be reasonably formatted to do so. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 6: Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint upheld EIR 3: Complaint upheld

[2018] UKICO fs50693766
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.617715

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Sep 2009

ICO The complainant requested a copy of the business case provided by the Department of Health to HM Treasury in 2002 in regard to the new contract for NHS consultants, together with HM Treasury’s response to the business case. The DoH directed the complainant to some information which was in the public domain, but refused to disclose other information under sections 35(1)(a) and (b). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the DoH disclosed the withheld information relating to the first part of the request, although it continued to withhold the information relating to the second part. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that although sections 35(1)(a) and (b) applied to the remaining information, the public interest in maintaining the exemptions did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. Therefore the remaining withheld information should be disclosed. The Commissioner also found that the DoH did not comply with section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2009/0087 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50195059
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532168

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Jul 2009

ICO The complainant requested the legal advice given to the Department of Health (DoH) regarding the proposed implementation of the NHS database. His request was declined by the DoH relying on the section 42(1) exemption concerning legal professional privilege. The Commissioner has considered the application of this exemption and is satisfied that the public authority has applied the section 42(1) exemption correctly and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0071 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50201819
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532088

Metropolitan Police Service (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jun 2009

The complainant requested information relating to an incident in which the Metropolitan Police Service conveyed the passport belonging to Cherie Blair, the Prime Minister’s wife, from 10 Downing Street to Heathrow Airport. To begin with, the Metropolitan Police Service incorrectly dealt with the request outside of the Act. It subsequently refused the request on the basis of the exemptions at sections 24 (National Security), 31 (Law Enforcement) and 38 (Health and Safety). Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the Metropolitan Police Service accepted that these exemptions do not apply to the information falling within the scope of the request and that they were cited in error. During the course of his investigation, the Metropolitan Police advised the Commissioner that no recorded information within the scope of the request was held. Subsequently, it advised the Commissioner that a limited amount of recorded information had belatedly been located. In failing to identify and disclose recorded information that was held at the time of the request the Commissioner finds the Metropolitan Police Service did not comply with its obligations under sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act. In failing to confirm within 20 working days that it held recorded information within the scope of the request, the Metropolitan Police Service is in breach of section 1(1)(a) and section 10(1) of the Act. In issuing a defective refusal notice, the Metropolitan Police Service breached section 17(1) of the Act and in failing to specify the relevant sub-sections it breached section 17(1)(b). As the information has now been disclosed to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50148975
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532062

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Jul 2009

ICO The complainant made a request to inspect the building control and traffic schemes information within 200 metres of a named address. The Council agreed to provide the information requested but only on the provision of a fee based on the property search regulations. The Council argued that it was allowed to charge for the information under regulation 8(1) as the information was not in a public register and could not be inspected without further collation by the Council. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the request is a request to inspect environmental information but that the Council cannot charge for the information by virtue of regulation 8(2)(b). The Council must make the information available for inspection in accordance with regulation 5(1) within 35 calendar days of this notice. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0069 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FER0236058
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532090

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Jul 2009

ICO The complainant requested a copy of the Gateway review report produced in September 2006 regarding the Department of Health’s Modernising Medical Careers (MMC) programme. Some of the information was disclosed, however the majority of the requested information was withheld under section 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner has reviewed the withheld information and considers that whilst the section 35(1)(a) exemption is engaged, the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Department is therefore required to disclose the requested information to the complainant. The Commissioner has concluded that, in failing to make available to the complainant information to which he is entitled, the Department has breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50171478
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532087