Tag: Information

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

St Neots Town Council (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Apr 2010

The complainant requested a copy of a report held by St Neots Town Council (‘the Council’) concerning an incident in November 2007 in St Neots involving the Christmas light display. The Council provided a copy of the report with redactions and it also withheld all the appendices to the report. It stated that it wished to rely on the exemption under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA’) and it also referred to section 7(5) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘the DPA’). During its internal review, the Council also cited section 41(1). It did not explain why any of the exemptions applied and it did not address the public interest test relevant to section 43(2). During the Information Commissioner’s (‘the Commissioner’) investigation, the Council sought to rely on section 42(1) and section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated and agreed that the withheld information was exempt under section 42(1) because it was covered by Legal Professional Privilege. He found that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information in all the circumstances of the case. He also found that the Council breached section 17(1), 17(1)(b), 17(1)(c) and 17(3)(b).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50241186
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531410

Serious Fraud Office (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Mar 2010

The complainant requested information relating to fraud in landed property. The Serious Fraud Office initially refused to disclose the information, citing section 21 (information accessible by other means) and section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement). In its internal review correspondence it referred to section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner is satisfied that it would exceed the cost limit for the Serious Fraud Office to comply with the request. However he identified procedural shortcomings on the part of the public authority relating to its provision of advice and assistance and in relation to its citing of section 12.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50246007
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531384

Her Majesty’s Courts Service (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Apr 2010

The complainant requested information, in the form of a list, relating to Crown Court sentences which have been reduced on appeal. The request was refused on the basis that the public authority does not hold lists of the type requested. The Commissioner does not accept that the information is not held. However, he accepts that the information that falls within the scope of the request is contained within court records and is therefore exempt by virtue of section 32(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. He also identified some procedural breaches of the Act. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 32 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50229335
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531402

Ministry of Defence (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Mar 2010

The complainant requested from the Ministry of Defence a copy of the movement order issued to the Ministry of Defence Special Escort Group, Fleet Protection Group Royal Marines, Defence Logistics Organisation Nuclear Movements Team and staff from AWE plc, in relation to the nuclear warhead which travelled from AWE Aldermaston / Burghfield to RNAD Coulport and back in January 2007.The Ministry of Defence relied on section 24 (National security) and section 26 (Defence) not to communicate the information to the complainant. The Commissioner found that the exemption was engaged and that the public interest test weighed in favour of the maintenance of the exemption. However, the Commissioner decided that the Ministry of Defence’s public interest test determination was in breach of section 17(3) and there were further breaches of sections 17(1) and 17(1)(b). The Commissioner also expressed his concern at the public authority’s lateness in completing the internal review.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 26 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50192677
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531370

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50208934: ICO 2 Mar 2010

ICO The complainant made a Freedom of Information Act request to the Ministry of Justice for a copy of the Tasker report, a detailed report into corruption and mismanagement at HMP Wandsworth. Subsequent to the Commissioner’s intervention, the main body of the Tasker report was provided to the complainant’s satisfaction, subject to minor redactions in respect of section 40(2). However, during the course of the investigation the Ministry of Justice identified that it held further information in the form of seven annexes to the main report, which had been withheld from the complainant. It was very slow to supply the Commissioner with copies of the annexes, and it failed to identify to him which exemptions it was applying in respect of them. The Commissioner concluded that the annexes had not been included within the scope of the Ministry of Justice’s consideration of the request. In failing to issue a valid refusal notice in respect of the withheld annexes, the Commissioner therefore finds that the Ministry of Justice breached the time limit in section 17(1) of the Act. This Decision Notice therefore requires the Ministry of Justice to issue a refusal notice in compliance with section 17(1) in respect of the annexes. If the Ministry of Justice concludes that no exemption applies or if the exemption in question is qualified and the balance of the public interest favours disclosing the information, the annexes should be provided to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50208934
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531372

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Mar 2010

ICO The complainant submitted a seven-part request to the Department of Health concerning the correspondence which the DH may have exchanged with HRH The Prince of Wales and His Royal Highness’representatives. The DH initially refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request in reliance on section 37(2) of the Act – communications with the Royal Household. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigations the DH confirmed to the complainant that it did hold information falling within the scope of his request. The DH also reconsidered its approach to the complainant’s request and determined that it was not obliged to provide the information because to do so would exceed the appropriate cost limit under section 12(1) of the Act. The DH provided the Commissioner with documents containing information relevant to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner has determined that some of the information contained within them is environmental information and should therefore have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. For the information which is not environmental, the Commissioner has decided that the DH is entitled to refuse the complainant’s request on the basis that to comply with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and therefore section 12(1) of the Act applies. In respect of the environmental information, the Commissioner has decided that the DH is also entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR on the basis that the request is manifestly unreasonable. In its handling of the request the Commissioner has determined that the DH breached sections 1(1)(a), 10(1), 16 and 17(5) of the Act and regulations 9, 11(4), 14(2) and 14(3) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 9 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50128567
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531339

Department of Health (Decision Notice) FS50192216: ICO 1 Mar 2010

ICO The complainant made a request to the Department of Health for correspondence between it and HM Treasury regarding the DoHs ‘ near cash overspend’ in 2005-6. Specifically the complainant requested information from January to July 2006. The DoH refused to disclose this information under sections 35(1)(a) and (b). During the investigation of the case the DoH informed the Commissioner that it was also relying upon section 31(1)(c) to withhold some of the information. After investigating the case the Commissioner concluded that the majority of the information should be withheld under sections 35(1)(a) and (b). However, he also decided that some information previously withheld under section 35(1)(a) should be disclosed. He also found that the DoH had not met with the requirements of sections 10(1) and 17(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2010/0067 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50192216
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531341

Department of Health (Decision Notice) FS50185270: ICO 1 Mar 2010

ICO The complainant requested various pieces of information regarding communication with HM Treasury in relation to the 2002 Spending Review. Specifically, the complainant requested the Bid Letter from the Department of Health, the Settlement Letter from HM Treasury, and the internal advice provided in relation to the Bid Letter. The DoH refused to disclose this information under sections 35(1)(a) and (b). During the investigation the Commissioner formed the view that some of the withheld information was ‘statistical information’. Therefore the DoH applied sections 36(2)(a)(i), 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), and 36(2)(c) in relation to that information. After investigating the case the Commissioner upheld the DoH’s use of sections 35(1)(a) and (b), 36(2)(a)(i), 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), and 36(2)(c) in relation to some of the withheld information. However, he also found that in relation to some of the statistical information sections 36(2)(a)(i), 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), and 36(2)(c) were not engaged. Therefore this information should be disclosed. Finally, the Commissioner also found that the DoH breached sections 10(1) and 17(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2010/0066 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50185270
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531340