Tag: Information

Wiltshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Feb 2010

ICO The complainant made a number of requests to Wiltshire County Council between 4 May 2008 and 26 May 2008. The Council refused to provide any information requested, citing section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Council subsequently applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR in respect of three of these requests, and section 14(1) of the Act in respect of the remainder. The Commissioner concluded that it was reasonable for the Council to apply section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner also concluded that the Council had correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. However, the Commissioner found that the Council breached section 17(7) of the Act as it failed to issue a notice containing particulars of the Council’s complaints procedure. The Commissioner also found that the Council breached regulation 11 of the EIR for failing to conduct a proper reconsideration, and regulation 14 of the EIR for not issuing a refusal under EIR during its handling of three of the requests.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Partly Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50203056
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531303

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Feb 2010

ICO The complainant requested the total sum of money provided by the public authority to Thames Valley Police in order to fund the policing operation relating to the new animal research centre at the University of Oxford. The public authority refused to disclose this, citing the exemptions provided by sections 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime) and 38(1)(a) and (b) (endangerment to health and safety). The Commissioner finds that these exemptions are not engaged and the public authority is required to disclose the information in question.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50243486
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531280

Essex Police (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Feb 2010

ICO The complainant made a request for information about two police officers serving within Essex Police (the ‘public authority’). The information was withheld under the exemption in section 40(2) (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 40(2) is engaged but that disclosure would not breach any of the principles in the Data Protection Act 1998 (the ‘DPA’). The complaint is upheld. The Commissioner further finds that the public authority breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) in failing to disclose the withheld information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50219757
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531268

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Feb 2010

ICO The complainant requested the names and corresponding box markings for each grade 6 (G6) lawyer, within a legal team at DEFRA, in the 2009 moderation. The public authority provided the complainant with a numerical breakdown of the distribution of the box markings; however it withheld the names and their corresponding box marking by virtue of the exemption contained at section 40(2) – third party information. The Commissioner finds that DEFRA correctly applied the exemption and requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50268377
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531264

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Jan 2010

The complainant sought correspondence exchanged between the public authority and The Prince of Wales concerning the regulation of homeopathic or herbal medicines. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information citing section 37(2) of the Act. The complainant also sought correspondence exchanged between the public authority and His Royal Highness’ Foundation for Integrated Health, again concerning the regulation of homeopathic or herbal medicines. The public authority informed the complainant that it did not hold any such correspondence. The complainant disputed the basis upon which the public authority refused both of his requests. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the first request and further is satisfied that the public authority does not hold any information falling within the scope of the complainant’s second request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 37 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50150310
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531232

Exeter City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Dec 2011

ICO The complainant requested information concerning housing jobs carried out by the council’s Housing Department. Exeter City Council ) refused to provide the information, relying on the exemption relating to personal information and the exclusion relating to costs under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council also introduced an exemption under the FOIA relating to the prevention of crime and alternatively sought to rely on exceptions under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should be considered under the FOIA. He decided that the council correctly withheld information that could identify individual tenants using the exemption relating to personal information, however, the Commissioner decided that the council should have disclosed the other information requested because the costs exclusion did not apply. It was not necessary to consider the application of the exemption relating to crime. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. It should disclose the withheld spreadsheet to the complainant but it should redact the addresses of the properties and any other information that could identify the individual tenants such as names and contact details.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50414803
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531161

Cabinet Office (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Dec 2011

ICO The complainant asked the Cabinet Office for the names of individuals, who were now dead, who had refused an honour in the period 1949 to the present day. The complainant also asked the Cabinet Office to specify the nature of each honour. The Cabinet Office provided the complainant with the information for the years 1949 and 1950 but refused to provide the information for 1951 to 2010 on the basis that some of it was in the public domain -‘ and thus exempt from disclosure of the basis of section 21 of the Act -‘ with the remainder being withheld on the basis of sections 37(1)(b) and section 41(1). The complainant asked the Commissioner to consider the application of the latter two exemptions. Having done so the Commissioner has concluded that section 41(1) does not provide a basis to withhold any of the information. He has also concluded that all of the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 37(1)(b). For the information concerning the years 1951 to 1989 the public interest favours disclosing the information. For the information concerning the years 1990 to 2010 the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. >br />Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 37 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50370643
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531142

Sunderland City Council (Decision Notice) FS50374873: ICO 3 Nov 2011

The complainant submitted two requests to Sunderland City Council for information regarding funding for business initiatives. The public authority refused the requests, citing section 14(1) of the Act, which applies to vexatious requests. The Commissioner has investigated and found that, on balance, the council was not entitled to refuse the requests under section 14(1). The Commissioner therefore requires the council to either comply with section 1(1) or issue a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50374873
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531113

Welsh Government (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Nov 2011

The complainant requested information relating to Powys Fadog and negotiations relating to the River Lodge Hotel, Llangollen. Some information was disclosed and other information withheld under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Assembly Government correctly applied section 40(2) to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner also accepts that the Welsh Government has disclosed the information it holds relevant to the request, except for information which is has correctly withheld under section 40(2). The Commissioner has identified procedural shortcomings in the way the Welsh Government handled the complainant’s request but requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0010 allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50353959
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531125

Suffolk County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Nov 2011

ICO The complainant requested information about the tendering process undertaken in the appointment of a specific solicitor by the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Suffolk County Council [the council] has supplied the complainant with all of the requested information. The information was not supplied within 20 working days and therefore the council has breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 [the Act].
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50414130
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531112