Tag: Information

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Aug 2010

The complainant requested recorded information about her late husband’s death. The public authority replied that it held no relevant recorded information. It maintained its position in its internal review. The Commissioner has carefully considered this case and has found, on the balance of probabilities, that no relevant recorded information was held at the date of the request. He therefore upholds the public authority’s position. He has however found a procedural breach of section 10(1) as the public authority failed to provide a response within the statutory timescales, but requires no remedial steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0158 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50300275
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531592

Merton London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Aug 2010

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Merton (the Council) concerning proposals to make certain roles within the Council redundant. The Council initially refused to provide any information citing the exemptions under section 40(2) and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA). In relation to the latter exemption, it concluded that the public interest favoured withholding the information. During the internal review, the Council provided the information that it had sought to withhold using section 40(2). Once the scope of the request had been clarified, the information withheld under section 43(2) was no longer relevant. The Council identified that it held a number of items of information relating to the request that had either been disclosed or which were already in the public domain. It disclosed this information in a single bundle to the complainant. It then sought to withhold a small amount of information under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c). It considered that the public interest favoured maintenance of the exemptions. The Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) was satisfied that section 36(2)(b)(ii) was engaged in respect of this information but he did not agree that the public interest favoured withholding it. The arguments identified by the qualified person in relation to section 36(2)(c) were found to be relevant and reasonable but in relation to section 36(2)(b)(ii). Having addressed the arguments under section 36(2)(b)(ii), it was not necessary to consider section 36(2)(c) further as no additional arguments were made about how disclosure would otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner considers that the Council breached sections 10(1), 1(1)(b) and 17(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50252690
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531606

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 11 Aug 2010

ICO The complainant requested a copy of a briefing document prepared for a Minister by a DoH official. The DoH initially cited section 14(1), and refused to deal with the request on the grounds that it was vexatious. During the Commissioner’s investigation he found that some of the requested information was, in fact, the complainant’s personal data and this was instead considered for disclosure by the DoH under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. In relation to the outstanding information, which was not the personal data of the complainant, the DoH dropped its use of section 14(1), and instead disclosed the information to him. As the information which is the personal data of the applicant is absolutely exempt from disclosure under the Act under section 40(1), and as the information which was not his personal data has now been disclosed, there are no steps the Commissioner can order to be taken. However, in failing to disclose the non-personal data within 20 working days, the Commissioner finds that the DoH did not meet the requirements
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50293611
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531588

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50286058: ICO 22 Jul 2010

ICO The complainant made a request to the Ministry of Justice on 21 October 2009, resubmitting the request on 17 November 2009 owing to its misdirection. Following receipt of the request the public authority investigated and found that the information was not held by the authority. The public authority failed to provide this response within twenty working days of receipt of the information request and therefore the Commissioner finds the authority to have breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50286058
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531562

Land Registry FS50208350: ICO 4 May 2010

ICO (Decision Notice) The complainant requested the full source codes for a number of different computer applications used by the public authority and additional information in relation to three separate programs. The public authority withheld information, citing the exemptions at sections 29(1)(b), 43(1), and 43(2) of the Act. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the public authority agreed to disclose the information held in relation to the three programs. The Commissioner finds that the public authority correctly withheld the relevant source codes on the basis of the section 29(1)(b) exemption, and in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the public interest in maintaining the exemption. In light of this finding, the Commissioner did not consider the applicability or otherwise of the other exemptions cited. He however finds the public authority in breach of sections 10(1) (Time for compliance with request), 17(1)(b), and 17(3)(b) (Refusal of request).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 29 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50208350
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531453

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

The complainant wrote to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (now the Department for Education) and requested various pieces of information regarding the Contact Point Data Security Review. The public authority disclosed some of the requested information, but withheld other parts under sections 31(1)(a), 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c), 38(1)(a), 38(1)(b) and 42. It also informed her that some of the information she had requested was not held. The Commissioner focused his investigation on two elements of the request -‘ namely for the minutes of meetings held to discuss the Contact Point Data Security Review, and a full copy of the Contact Point Data Security Review Report. This information was withheld under sections 31(1)(a), 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c) and 38(1)(b). During the course of the investigation the public authority also sought to rely upon section 42 to withhold some of the information. The public authority also stated that it was now prepared to disclose some of the previously withheld information. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that some of the information had been correctly withheld under sections 31(1)(a), 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii). However, he also decided that some of the information withheld under sections 31(1)(a), 36(2)(c), 38(1)(b) and 42(1) was not exempt, and should therefore be disclosed. He also found that the public authority had not met the requirements of sections 1, 10 and 17.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50218437
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531493

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 18 May 2010

ICO The complainant requested details of the unit cost of the vaccine Cervarix, and the value of the contract with the vaccine manufacturer. The Department of Health refused to provide this information, citing section 43(2). During the course of the investigation the DoH also stated that the information was exempt under sections 41 and 44. After investigating the case the Commissioner has decided that the information should be withheld under section 43(2). However, in applying late exemptions the DoH acted in breach of section 17(1)(b) and (c).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50239635
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531437

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 17 May 2010

ICO The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the Department of Heal for advice from the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) to the Secretary of State for Health in August 1990 regarding the litigation over the infection of haemophiliacs with HIV through contaminated blood products. The DoH refused the complainant’s request as it stated that the information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii). The Commissioner has reviewed the withheld information and considers that section 36(2)(b)(i) or (ii) is not engaged as section 35(1)(a) is applicable. The Commissioner also considers that the DoH breached sections 1(1)(b), section 10(1) and section 17(1) when responding to the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50255678
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531438

Royal Mail (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Apr 2010

The complainant made a request to Royal Mail for the minutes of the Stamp Advisory Committee (the SAC). Royal Mail withheld the minutes of the SAC under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c). After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that the information was correctly withheld under section 36(2)(b)(i). However, the Commissioner also decided that Royal Mail did not meet the requirements of section 17(3).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50256704
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531409

Sutton London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Apr 2010

The complainant requested information concerning a planning application made by a person who had purchased the complainant’s property. The London Borough of Sutton (‘the Council’) provided all of the information held apart from its correspondence with the complainant which was not required and some redacted information from emails of objection received. It stated that the redacted information from the emails was excepted under regulation 12(5)(f) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’) and that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The complainant alleged that not all of the information held had been provided and complained that the Council had incorrectly withheld information. The Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’) decided that it was appropriate to consider the withheld information under regulation 13(1) because it was personal data. The Commissioner decided that the Council incorrectly withheld the names and residential addresses of the objectors but that regulation 13(1) was engaged in respect of the email addresses of the objectors. He found breaches of regulation 5(1), 5(2), 9(1), 14(2), 14(3)(b) and 14(5) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 9 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FER0220492
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531411