Tag: Information

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Jun 2009

ICO The complainant made a request to the Department of Health (the ‘DoH’) for copies of all minutes of the Board of Advisors Anti Stigma and Discrimination programme meetings that had taken place as at the date of his request. The DoH provided redacted copies of these minutes and informed the complainant that information had been withheld under section 40(2). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation of the complaint the DoH informed the Commissioner that it was also relying on section 36(2)(b) and (c). After investigating the complaint the Commissioner has decided that section 40(2) was not engaged in respect of some of the information and refused to accept the late application of section 36.He has however decided that the DoH correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold the names of the expert advisors. He has also decided that the DoH did not comply with the requirements of section 17(1) in failing to issue a refusal notice within the time for compliance with section 1(1), and also failed to meet the requirements of section 17(1)(b) and (c). In failing to comply with the requirements of section 1(1)(b) within twenty working days to the information he has ordered disclosure of the DoH also breached the time for compliance set out at section 10 of the Act. The Commissioner therefore orders disclosure of all the redacted names except the names of the expert advisors.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50091230
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532051

House of Commons (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Jun 2009

ICO The complainant asked the House of Commons (HoC) to provide him with a variety of information about expense claims made by 12 specific MPs relating to both travel allowances and stationery allowances. The HoC provided the complainant with some information but argued that further information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of the Act (Personal information). The information withheld on the basis of section 40(2) comprised the total amount claimed by each MP for staff travel for the financial years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 against the Incidental Expenses Provisions and staffing budget allowances, and a breakdown of the amount claimed by each MP in relation to centrally purchased stationery and postage for the financial years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 of the published tables. (Since 2004 MPs’ total annual spend against allowances has been published on the Parliamentary website). The complainant asked the Commissioner to consider the application of section 40(2) to these two classes of information. The Commissioner has concluded that section 40(2) does not provide a basis to withhold the information and therefore the Commissioner has ordered the HoC to disclose this information. In handling this request the Commissioner has also concluded that the HoC breached section 1(1)(b) and 10(1) by incorrectly withholding this information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50199197
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532058

National Offender Management Service (Decision Notice) FS50206580: ICO 16 Mar 2009

The complainant requested information from the public authority about incidents involving Islamic extremists in prisons. The public authority replied that section 31(1)(f) (maintenance of security and good order in prisons) must be considered and that it extended the time limit in order to assess the public interest test. The timeframe was readjusted on four separate occasions. The Commissioner finds a delay of over ten months in carrying out a public interest determination to be in breach of section 17(3)(b). The Commissioner has also found two breaches of section 10(1). The public authority is required within 35 calendar days to comply fully with its obligations under section 1(1) of the Act for each part of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50206580
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531992

Cabinet Office (Decision Notice) FS50193945: ICO 30 Apr 2009

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office which sought details of the information provided to the UK by the Saudi Government, prior to the July 7 2005 terrorist attacks, about expected terrorist attacks in the UK. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but it considered it to be exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 23(1) of the Act. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Cabinet Office was correct to withhold this information on the basis of section 23(1). However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the Cabinet Office breached section 10(1) by failing to confirm within 20 working days that it held this information and furthermore also breached section 17(1) by failing to issue a refusal notice citing section 23 within the same time period.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50193945
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.532012

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Mar 2009

ICO The complainant asked the Department of Health (‘the Department’) for a copy of the Gateway 4 review report for the Department’s Electronic Recruitment project. The Department provided the complainant with certain elements of the review report, but withheld some information citing the exemption contained in section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Commissioner has decided that section 36(2)(b)(ii) is engaged in relation to the information in the report, but he concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information sought. He directed the Department to provide the complainant with that information. The Commissioner has also 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 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50075956
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531966

Forestry Commission Scotland (Decision Notice) FS50187763: ICO 30 Mar 2009

ICO The complainant requested information from the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) in relation to the provision of Mountain Biking Trails in the Carron Valley. The FCS refused to disclose the information or to confirm or deny if the information is held, citing section 14 of the Act ‘vexatious requests’ and 12 ‘cost limit’. The Commissioner has investigated and found that sections 14(1) and 12(1) of the Act are not engaged. However he found that some of the information requested would, if held be environmental information and should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations. The FCS applied regulation 12(4) (b), ‘manifestly unreasonable’, to this request as an alternative. The Commissioner concluded that 12(4) (b) was not engaged. The Commissioner requires that the FCS now confirm or deny to the complainant if the information requested is held and if held disclose this information to the complainant or issue the complainant with a valid refusal notice under section 17(1) of the Act or regulation 14 of the EIR. The FCS must take these steps within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Partly Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50187763
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531975

Forestry Commission Scotland (Decision Notice) FS50176942: ICO 30 Mar 2009

ICO The complainant made four requests for information to the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS). The FCS refused to confirm or deny if the information was held or to disclose the information citing section 14 of the Act ‘vexatious requests’ and 12 ‘cost limit’. The FCS refused to disclose the information citing section 14 of the Act ‘vexatious requests’ and 12 ‘cost limit’. The Commissioner has investigated and found that sections 14(1) and 12(1) of the Act are not engaged. However he found that some of the information requested would, if held be environmental information and should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations. The FCS applied regulation 12(4) (b), ‘manifestly unreasonable’, to this request as an alternative. The Commissioner concluded that 12(4) (b) was not engaged. The Commissioner requires that the FCS now confirm or deny to the complainant if the information requested is held and if held disclose this information to the complainant or issue the complainant with a valid refusal notice under section 17(1) of the Act or regulation 14 of the EIR.
The FCS must take these steps within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Partly Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50176942
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531974

Forestry Commission Scotland (Decision Notice) FS50176016: ICO 30 Mar 2009

The complainant made two requests for information to the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS). The FCS refused to disclose the information or to confirm or deny if the information is held citing section 14 of the Act ‘vexatious requests’ and 12 ‘costs limit’. The Commissioner has investigated and found that sections 14(1) and 12(1) of the Act are not engaged. However he found that some of the information requested would, if held be environmental information and should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations. The FCS applied regulation 12(4) (b), ‘manifestly unreasonable’, to this request as an alternative. The Commissioner concluded that 12(4) (b) was not engaged. The Commissioner requires that the FCS now confirm or deny to the complainant if the information requested is held and if held disclose this information to the complainant or issue the complainant with a valid refusal notice under section 17(1) of the Act or regulation 14 of the EIR. The FCS must take these steps within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50176016
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531973

Forestry Commission Scotland (Decision Notice) FS50190235: ICO 30 Mar 2009

ICO The complainant made a request for information to the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS). The FCS refused to disclose the information, or to confirm if the information requested was held citing section 14(1) of the Act ‘vexatious requests’ and 12(1) ‘cost limit’. The Commissioner has investigated and found that sections 14(1) and 12(1) of the Act are not engaged. The Commissioner requires that the FCS now confirm or deny to the complainant if the information requested is held and if held disclose this information to the complainant or issue the complainant with a valid refusal notice under section 17(1) of the Act. The Commissioner also found that in failing to issue the complainant with a refusal notice the FCS breached the requirements of section 17(1). The FCS must take these steps within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50190235
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531976

Northumbria Police (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jan 2009

The complainant requested the total spent on and number of informants registered by the public authority for the five years preceding his request. The public authority refused the request, citing section 30(2) (information relating to the obtaining of information from confidential sources) and 38(1)(b) (endangerment to safety). Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the public authority amended its stance and stated that to provide the number of informants would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner finds that the public authority concluded incorrectly that the public interest favoured the maintenance of section 30(2) and that the exemption provide by section 38(1)(b) is not engaged. The public authority is required to disclose the information showing the total spend on informants for the five years preceding the request. In relation to the request for the numbers of informants, the Commissioner concludes that the public authority estimated correctly that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit and no steps in connection with this part of the request are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50123912
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531921

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

ICO The complainant requested a copy of a contract agreed by the public authority for the provision of a national broadband network under the NHS National Programme for IT with certain information removed. The public authority initially refused to disclose the contract under sections 12 (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit) and 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the Act. It subsequently also sought to rely on sections 40(2) (personal information) and 41 (information provided in confidence). During the course of the investigation, the complainant accepted the public authority’s application of section 40(2) to certain information in the contract. The Commissioner determined that sections 12, 41 and 43(2) were not applicable and ordered that a redacted version of the contract be disclosed to the complainant. He also found that the public authority had not complied with section 1(1)(b), as it did not provide the requested information by the time of the completion of the internal review, and section 10(1), as it did not provide the requested information within 20 working days of the request. In addition, it breached section 17(1)(b) and (c), as it failed to state in its refusal notice that it believed that sections 40(2) and 41 were applicable to the information requested nor explain why they applied.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50088736
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531918

Northumbria Police (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Dec 2010

The complainant requested various information concerning the most prolific offender aged 10 to 15 within the area covered by the public authority. Initially, the public authority refused the request under the exemptions provided by the following sections of the Freedom of Information Act: 40(2) (personal information), 44(1) (statutory prohibitions to disclosure), 30(1) and (2) (information held for the purposes of investigations) and 38(1) (endangerment to health and safety). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the stance of the public authority changed and it now cited section 12(1) of the Act as it believed that compliance with the requests would exceed the cost limit of pounds 450. The Commissioner finds that it was reasonable for the public authority to estimate that the cost of the requests would exceed the limit and so it was not obliged to comply with these requests. However, the Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with section 17(5) of the Act in that it did not cite section 12(1) within 20 working days of receipt of the requests.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50300157
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531892

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50281705: ICO 7 Dec 2010

The complainant requested copies of advice given to the Information Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’) during the course of preparing for a hearing involving the complainant. The Commissioner considers this information to be the personal data of the complainant and, as such, exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’) by virtue of section 40(1). Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0206 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50281705
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531884

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50282165: ICO 21 Dec 2010

ICA On 24 October 2009, the complainant requested that the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MoJ’) should provide him with information regarding how many male prisoners had been allowed to use artificial insemination with their partners in each of the last ten years and how many female prisoners had become pregnant in the same time period. The MoJ refused the information under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’). The MoJ explained that to locate the information would involve searching the general prisoner records and that this would exceed the cost limits. It confirmed that the information was not recorded elsewhere. The Commissioner is satisfied that the cost of locating the information would exceed the guidelines and therefore finds that the MoJ was correct to apply section 12(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50282165
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531885

Leeds City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Dec 2010

The complainant requested the ‘Working file’ that contained the original records of the Leeds City Council AGM held on 19 May 2003. The public authority responded that it would provide the public records of the meeting to the complainant, but would not provide the remainder of the ‘Working file’ because it believed that:The request for information was not valid; andIf it was, it was vexatious. It could therefore rely on the exclusion found in section 14(1) of the Act.The complainant referred this case to the Commissioner, who found:That the requests for information dated 22 October 2009 and 26 October 2009 were valid as they complied with the requirements of section 8(1); andThat on the facts of the case a reasonable public authority could not find the requests vexatious by virtue of section 14(1).He requires that the public authority processes the requests again under the Act, without relying on the above arguments. He has also found procedural breaches of section 1(1)(a), 10(1) and section 17(5).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50298572
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531872

Department for Education (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Dec 2010

The complainant requested information relating to a study carried out into elective home education known as -‘The Badman Report’. The public authority refused to disclose the requested information relying upon section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner considers that the public authority applied section 14 appropriately. However he finds that the public authority has breached section 17(5) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50285730
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531843

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Dec 2010

The complainant made an information request on 9 March 2009 for ‘all correspondence and documents regarding the meeting this February of the First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, with the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’. The public authority provided most of the information it held but withheld the small remainder, relying on sections 27, 28 and 35 of the Act to do so. After considering the withheld information the Commissioner’s decision is that the information was correctly withheld by virtue of sections 27 and 28 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 28 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50242792
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531859

Bromley London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Dec 2010

The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Bromley Council (‘the Council’) to inspect information from environmental records held on a property in Orpington. The Council stated that it would provide the requested information but only upon provision of a fee. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council agreed to provide the requested information for inspection free of charge. The Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) by failing to make the requested information that it held available within the statutory time for compliance. He does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FER0325143
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531822

Conwy County Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Dec 2010

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the Conwy County Borough Council for information from environmental records held on a property in Llandudno. The Council failed to respond to this request within 20 working days. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and agreed to provide the requested information for inspection free of charge. The Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) by failing to make the requested information that it held available within the statutory time for compliance. He does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FER0323465
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531838