Tag: Information

Brent Council (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Dec 2010

The complainant made a request for information to the London Borough of Brent via his account on the www.whatdotheyknow.com website. He requested that its response be provided in electronic form. The public authority expressed its willingness to provide the information to the complainant by way of an alternative email address, but claimed that it would not be reasonably practical for it to provide the information to the email address generated by the website, as to do so would raise copyright issues. The Commissioner has investigated and considers that the public authority should provide the requested information to the complainant to the whatdotheyknow.com email address that was used to make the request. The public authority has agreed with the Commissioner’s view and has now provided its response to that address. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in dealing with this request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50313965
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531820

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50289146: ICO 15 Nov 2010

ICO The complainant requested a list of prisoners who had been subject to covert surveillance in either Belgium, HMP Belmarsh or the Old Bailey during a specified period. The public authority refused to confirm or deny if it held information falling within the scope of this request, citing the exemptions provided by sections 23(5) (information relating to, or supplied by, security bodies), 24(2) (national security), 31(3) (prejudice to law enforcement), 40(5) (personal information) and 44(2) (statutory prohibitions to disclosure) of the Act in relation to HMP Belmarsh. In relation to Belgium and the Old Bailey, the complainant was advised to redirect his requests elsewhere. In relation to the HMP Belmarsh request, the Commissioner finds that the public authority applied the exemptions provided by sections 23(5) and 24(2) correctly. However, in relation to the Belgium and Old Bailey requests, the Commissioner finds that the public authority failed to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of these requests and, in so doing, did not comply with sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1). The public authority is now required to remedy this breach. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority breached sections 17(1), 17(1)(c) and 17(3)(a).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50289146
Bailii
England and Wales

Information, Prisons

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531794

Lancashire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Nov 2010

ICO The complainant requested various information relating to the sharing of personal data between the public authority and other organisations. The public authority disclosed some information (but the complainant did not accept that all relevant information had been disclosed), stated that some information was not held and refused some requests on the basis that to comply with these would exceed the cost limit. The Commissioner finds that, where the public authority disclosed information, no relevant information was withheld from the complainant, that the public authority stated correctly that no information was held that would fall within the scope of some parts of the requests and that it was reasonable for the public authority to estimate that the cost of compliance with some requests would exceed the appropriate limit. However, the Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with section 16(1) of the Act in that it did not provide advice and assistance to the complainant as to how those parts of his request refused on cost grounds might be refined to fall within the cost limit. It also failed to comply with sections 10(1) and 17(5) in its handling of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50277426
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531784

Department for Education (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Nov 2010

On 31 March 2010 the complainant requested that the Department for Education (then the Department for Children Schools and Families) provide him with the names and rail expenses of staff at all grades of SEO and above who had travelled first class and standard class between Darlington and London in 2008. The DfE refused the request as too costly under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It also argued that even if provided, the information would not be accurate. The Commissioner upholds the application of section 12(1); however he finds the DfE to be in breach of section 16. The Commissioner considers that although the DfE cannot guarantee the accuracy of the requested information, it could provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help him refine his request and bring it within the cost limits. The Commissioner also finds the DfE to be in breach of section 17(5) of the Act as it failed to cite section 12(1) in its refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50274798
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531767

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50277357 and FS: ICO 21 Oct 2010

ICO The complainant’s legal representatives made various information requests on three separate dates stemming from a long running issue between the complainant and the public authority. The public authority refused these requests under section 14(1) of the Act on the grounds that they were vexatious. The conclusion of the Commissioner is that the public authority accurately characterised these requests as vexatious and so section 14(1) provided that the public authority was not obliged to comply with these requests.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50277357 and FS
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531728

Westminster City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Sep 2010

ICO The complainant made a request for information and the public authority responded to the request but took longer than twenty working days. The complainant referred this matter to the Commissioner. The Commissioner finds that the public authority did take more than twenty working days to respond to the request for information. He has considered the public authority’s arguments that it reasonably requested further information under section 1(3) and has determined that its request in all the circumstances was not reasonable. The public authority failed to comply with either section 1(1)(a) or section 1(1)(b) within the necessary timescales and therefore breached section 10(1). However, he does not require any remedial steps to be taken because a valid response has now been issued.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50309619
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531695

Tate Modern (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Sep 2010

December 2009 the complainant submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Tate Modern requesting a copy of the legal advice it had received about the potential legality of displaying a photograph of Brooke Shields in a Pop Life Exhibition at the gallery. Following the legal advice, the photograph was displayed. However, it was then withdrawn once the police had advised that the work was ‘indecent’ under the Protection of Children Act 1978. In its response to the information request Tate argued that the legal advice was exempt under section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner considers that Tate was correct to apply section 42(1) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0185 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50304683
Bailii
Protection of Children Act 1978, Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.531690

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50311870: ICO 23 Sep 2010

ICO The complainant requested information from the public authority and did not receive a response within twenty working days. The Commissioner has found a breach of section 10(1) because no response was issued to the original request within twenty working days. The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50311870
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531671

Lancashire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Sep 2010

ico The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to Lancashire Police Authority for information relating to why it had not published an article about the Professional Standards Department in its leaflet ‘Dialogue’ in August 2007, as it had stated it would in the previous edition. The Authority provided a response in which it explained that all articles in ‘dialogue’ are driven by interaction between the public and the Authority at public meetings and are subject to the editor’s discretion. It clarified that there had been no deliberate omission of the article and confirmed it did not hold any information in relation to the request in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded on the balance of probabilities that the information requested was not held by the Council and therefore it complied with section 1(1)(a) in denying that it held any information. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0173 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50280472
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531664

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50277147: ICO 1 Sep 2010

ICO The complainant requested all unpublished background information held by the public authority about the End of Custody Licence Scheme. The public authority refused to disclose the information requested, with the exemptions provided by sections 35(1)(b) (information relating to Ministerial communications), 36(2)(b)(i) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice), 36(2)(b)(ii) (inhibition to the free and frank exchange of views) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) cited. The Commissioner finds that a minority of this information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 36(2)(b)(i), but that, in relation to the remainder of the information, none of the exemptions cited are upheld and the public authority is required to disclose this information to the complainant. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1) and 17(3)(b). Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0181 has been disposed of by way of a consent order.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50277147
Bailii
England and Wales

Information, Prisons

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531670

Northumberland County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Sep 2010

The complainant requested that Northumberland County Council (the ‘council’) should provide her with a copy of a file of inquest papers held by its County Archives Service. The complainant did not wish to pay the fees charged by the Archive Service and wanted the council to provide the information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’). The council refused to provide the information under section 21 of the Act. The Commissioner considers that the information is available to the complainant via the council’s Archive Service and that it is clear in the council’s publication scheme that a charge may be made for copying. The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that the council was correct to refuse the information under section 21(1) of the Act. However the Commissioner finds that in not specifying the relevant exemption in its refusal notice or at internal review the council is in breach of section 17(1)(b). In failing to provide a substantive refusal to the complainant within the statutory time period the council is also found to be in breach of section 17(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50287660
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531673

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Sep 2010

ICO The complainant referred to a letter written to him by the Department of Health, in which it had referred to ‘a range of clinical and medical opinion’ the subject under debate. The complainant asked for a copy of this information. The DoH stated that this information was not held. After investigating the case, the Commissioner is satisfied that the information is not held. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2010/0172 allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50292323
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531649

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50269559: ICO 3 Aug 2010

ICO The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) about the issue of ‘third party capture’ by liability insurers. The authority provided some information in response to the request. However, it refused to provide a copy of the legal advice passed to the MOJ by the Financial Services Authority further to an Exemption Order under the Compensation Act 2006 that the MOJ was making at the time. In withholding the information, the MOJ claimed that section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applied. The Commissioner considers that the MOJ was correct to cite section 42(1) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Nevertheless, the Commissioner has found that the MOJ breached section 10(1) in its handling of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50269559
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531614