Tag: Information

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Nov 2011

ICO The complainant has requested from the Department of Health Information about the public authority’s procedures around Summary Care Records. The DoH provided some information, applied section 21(1) to other information and explained that it did not hold any more information. The complainant referred this matter to the Information Commissioner. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the DoH provided the complainant with some more information and explained that it now believed that the costs limit [section 12(1)] applied because it would require work beyond the costs limit to be certain to find all the information requested. The complainant then asked the Commissioner to issue a Decision Notice on specific problems with the DoH’s handling of his request. For those issues, the Commissioner has determined: the DoH’s response was delayed and it breached section 17(5) in not telling the complainant that it was relying on section 12(1) in 20 working days; the DoH also breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) in wrongly declaring that it did not hold further relevant recorded information when it did; the advice and assistance provided by the DoH was not reasonable and it breached section 16(1); and the DoH wrongly argued that section 21(1) applied to the information behind links that didn’t work and so also breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1). He does not require any remedial steps to be taken because the DoH provided the readily available information on the Commissioner’s instruction and the complainant has submitted a narrowed request to the DoH after discussing this matter with the Commissioner which would have constituted the advice and assistance that he would have ordered the DoH to provide.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50395506
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531068

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Nov 2011

ICO The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department of Health for a copy of its strategic risk register. The public authority refused the request under section 35(1)(a) (Formulation and development of government policy) and the complainant appealed the decision to the Commissioner. The Commissioner has now investigated the complaint and found that the section 35(1)(a) exemption is engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0286 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50392064
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531067

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Decision Notice) FS50403687: ICO 21 Nov 2011

The complainant requested copies of diplomatic telegrams sent from the UK embassy in Zagreb, Croatia to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) between 14 April and 19 April 2011. The Commissioner has concluded the telegrams in question are exempt from disclosure on the basis of the international relations exemption because their disclosure would prejudice the UK’s relations with Croatia.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50403687
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531076

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Nov 2011

ICO The complainant made a number of requests for information to the Department of Health about the new NHS bill and other issues about its handling of the correspondence. He referred six of these requests to the Information Commissioner who numbered them requests [1] to [6]. The DoH confirmed that it had answered request [1] and the complainant agreed to withdraw it. It applied section 12(1) to [2] -[6] explaining that the combined work that needed to be done would exceed the costs limit of the Act. It also applied section 14(2) to request [3] as well. The Commissioner has determined that section 14(2) was applied correctly to request [3], while section 12(1) was applied appropriately to requests [2], [4], [5] and [6]. He also considers that the DoH offered reasonable advice and assistance in all the circumstances of this case. He requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50386209
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531065

Cabinet Office (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Nov 2011

On 16 November 2010, the complainant wrote to the Cabinet Office and requested copies of any minute, correspondence, communications or any other information held by the Cabinet Office regarding the wedding of Prince William. This request was made by the complainant on the same date that the engagement of HRH Prince William to Kate Middleton was announced by Clarence House. The Cabinet Office responded on 13 December 2010. It stated that it did not hold any information relevant to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does not hold the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50374249
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531050

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Nov 2011

ICO The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department of Health for a copy of risk registers or risk assessments related to government plans regarding the modernisation of the NHS and the Health and Social Care Bill. The Department of Health refused the request under section 35(1)(a) of the Act (formulation of government policy). The Commissioner has now investigated the complaint and found that section 35(1)(a) is engaged but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose this information. The Commissioner also found that in its handling of the request the public authority breached section 17(1) of the Act (Refusal of a request). Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0287 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50390786
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531066

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Oct 2011

ICO The complainant has requested information about the employment record and benefits of one of its previous employees. The complainant has made some related requests and the public authority refused to provide the information on the basis that the request was vexatious. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was incorrect in finding the request vexatious. The Information Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: it should either provide the requested information to the complainant or issue him with a valid refusal notice under the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50387510
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.530961

Lancashire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Oct 2011

ICO Lancashire Constabulary refused to comply ith the complainant’s information requests on the grounds that they were vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire Constabulary has breached the FOIA by incorrectly refusing the requests as vexatious. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0278 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50389914
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.530979

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Oct 2011

The complainant has requested information concerning allegations of corruption in the Cayman Islands and the decision by the Governor of the Cayman Islands to dismiss these. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) refused the request under the exemption provided by section 27(1)(a) (prejudice to international relations) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCO applied the exemption provided by section 27(1)(a) correctly and so it is not required to disclose this information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50399152
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.530966

Merton London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Oct 2011

The complainant requested information from London Borough of Merton (the Council) about its carriage and footway maintenance programmes. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not deal with the request under the correct legislation. Access to environmental information should be considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR). The Information Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to provide the information requested in compliance with regulation 5(1); or issue a valid refusal notice that complies with regulation 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FER0417414
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.530980

Northumbria Police (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Oct 2011

The complainant made a request to Northumbria Police (the force) in November 2010 for information relating to the force’s investigation into the attempted murder of Martin McGartland. In December 2010 he made a further related request for additional information relating to the same investigation. The force also received a number of similar related requests on the same subject at around the same time. The force refused the complainant’s request on the basis that, as it was part of a campaign, the request was vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the force incorrectly applied section 14(1) to the request. He requires the public authority to respond to the request in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the Act within 35 calendar days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50378155
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.531000

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Oct 2011

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the occupation of a specific residential site. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (the ‘Council’) refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable). Immediately prior to submitting their complaint to the Commissioner, the complainant had been provided with the Commissioner’s decision regarding their complaint about the Council’s handling of a previous request. In that instance, the Commissioner found that the Council had correctly refused the request as being manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner considers that the request which is the subject of this decision notice relates to the same matters and that, therefore, the analysis and conclusions he reached in his previous notice are also applicable in this instance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply regulation 12(4)(b) to the request and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception in this instance. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FER0419413
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.530960

City of York Council (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Oct 2011

The complainant submitted a request to the City of York Council (‘the Council’) for information from environmental records held on a property in York. The Council stated that it would only provide a collated version of this information upon provision of a fee. The Commissioner finds that Council has breached regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR as it failed to make the requested information available on request within the statutory time for compliance. The Council has breached regulation 8(3) by imposing an unreasonable charge for the provision of environmental information. The Council has breached regulation 6(2)(c) by failing to make the applicant aware of the appeal provisions of the EIR when refusing to provide information in a specific form. It has also breached regulation 11(4) by failing to provide its internal review to the complainant within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to make the requested information available to the complainant for a reasonable fee within 35 days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 8 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FER0372748
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.530942

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Sep 2011

ICO The complainant has requested information about the recruitment process for the public authority’s chief executive, and also details of his remuneration and pension package. After a considerable delay, some information about the chief executive’s remuneration was disclosed, but information about his recruitment was withheld on the grounds that it is his personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Riding of Yorkshire Council (the council) has correctly withheld information about the recruitment of its chief executive, but the delays in providing the information which was disclosed went far beyond the 20 working days which is permitted for a response to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act (the Act). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0216 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50357370
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.530836

Metropolitan Police Service (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Sep 2011

The complainant contacted the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and requested information concerning the location of alleged war crimes investigated by the MPS. The MPS responded and refused to comply with the request on the grounds that section 12(2) was engaged. The MPS stated that determining whether the requested information was held would exceed the appropriate costs limit. The Commissioner investigated and has found that the MPS was correct to apply section 12(2) to the request. He has also found that the MPS has discharged its duties under section 16(1) of the Act and provided advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken by the MPS.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50389917
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.530865

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Sep 2011

ICO The complainant made a request to the Department of Health (DoH) for a copy of any legal advice on EU competition law given to the Secretary of State or other Ministers in relation to a specific aspect of the Health and Social Care Bill. The DoH withheld this information under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner finds that the public interest balance under section 42 falls in favour of disclosure and the information should be disclosed. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0239 allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50402010)
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.530832

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Sep 2011

ICO On 25 October 2010, the complainant wrote to the Department of Health (the Department) and requested information in the following terms: ‘May I have information relating to what mechanisms the NHS/DOH has to try to ensure staff comply with FoI legislation. In particular, who is responsible and what action is taken against them when they fail to meet their responsibility?’ The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Department failed to comply with section 10(1) in relation to the request. The Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) does not require the Department to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50357666
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.530830

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Sep 2011

ICO The complainant requested a considerable amount of information about the public authority’s procedures regarding Summary Care Records. The public authority did not originally treat it as a request for information under the Act and tried to respond to the request under normal course of business. The complainant referred the request to the Commissioner who advised the public authority to issue an appropriate response. It did then do so. The complainant subsequently refined his request, but asked for the Commissioner to issue a formal decision notice about the delays that he experienced in obtaining a substantive response from the public authority. The Commissioner finds that the public authority breached the procedural requirements of sections 10(1) and 17(5) in this case. However, he requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50381511
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.530831

Standards for England (Decision Notice) FS50367497: ICO 31 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant made a freedom of information request to Standards for England (SfE) for a copy of a report concerning the conduct of a named councillor. SfE refused disclosure of the report under section 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, SfE reconsidered its refusal and agreed to release the report to the complainant subject to a number of redactions. SfE considered that the redacted information was covered variously by the exemptions set out at section 31 (law enforcement), 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal data) and 44. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and is satisfied that all the redacted information is exempt from disclosure under section 44 of the Act by virtue of the statutory prohibition in section 63 of the Local Government Act 2000. The Commissioner does not therefore require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50367497
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.530789

Cardiff Council (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Sep 2011

The complainant requested information regarding the cost to the Council of employing barrister’s chambers or solicitors at employment tribunals over a period of nine years. The Council refused to comply with the request on the basis that to do so would exceed the appropriate cost limit. It therefore applied section 12(1) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not demonstrated that section 12(1) of the Act is engaged and he therefore orders the Council to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice. The Commissioner is also concerned at the Council’s approach to offering advice and assistance to the applicant under section 16(1) of the Act, and he has made further reference to the Council’s general approach to request handling in the ‘other matters’ section of this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0220 allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50387110
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 December 2021; Ref: scu.530817

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Aug 2011

The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to bulk supply clients of the Registry Trust Limited (RTL). RTL purchase data from the MoJ and sell this on to its supply clients. The MoJ stated that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner accepts that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ was correct to state that it does not hold the requested information. However it was not until during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation that the MoJ confirmed that the full scope of the information requested by the complainant was not held.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50361271
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530766

Lincolnshire Police (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Aug 2011

The complainant asked Lincolnshire Police (the ‘public authority’) to provide information relating to European Arrest Warrants. The public authority refused to disclose this using the exemptions in section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit), further stating that any information it might be able to provide under the cost limit was likely to be exempt by virtue of section 23(1) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 23 is engaged. He has therefore not considered the applicability of the other exemption. The complaint is not upheld. The public authority’s handling of the request resulted in breaches of certain procedural requirements of the Act as identified in this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50367380
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530761

Metropolitan Police Service (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Aug 2011

The complainant asked the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘public authority’) to provide information relating to the Royal Wedding and the costs of protecting Kate Middleton. Some of the information was withheld under the exemptions in sections 31(1), 37(1), 40(2) and 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (the ‘Act’); during the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority also sought to rely on section 38(1), and removed 41(1). In respect of any protection costs the public authority relied on sections 24(2), 31(3) and 38(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether any of the information falling within the scope of the request was held.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 24 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 37 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50374250
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530765

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (Decision Notice) FS50384738: ICO 22 Aug 2011

The complainant requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’) some information about a compliance investigation that the MHRA had undertaken. The MHRA replied that it believed that section 44 applied and it withheld the information. It also withheld the name of one of its member’s of staff by virtue of section 40(2). The complainant referred this case to the Commissioner. In particular, he argued that the wrong statutory bar had been applied by the MHRA. The Commissioner finds that section 44(1)(b) has been applied appropriately to all of the information withheld under section 44. He also finds that the MHRA have applied the appropriate statutory bar. He has also found that section 40(2) has been applied appropriately to the one name. He finds procedural breaches of sections 17(1) and 17(1)(b), but requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0199 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50384738
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530763

Metropolitan Police Service (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Aug 2011

The complainant requested the cost of investigating the former police officer Ali Dizaei. The public authority refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 12(1) of the Act (cost of compliance). However, during the Commissioner’s investigation, the public authority submitted that the information was not held. The Commissioner found that, on a balance of probabilities, the requested information was not held. The Commissioner however found the public authority in procedural breach of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50373179
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530764

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (Decision Notice) FS50373036: ICO 22 Aug 2011

The complainant requested, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’), information from the MHRA about its procedures in set circumstances. The MHRA provided some information and explained that it did not hold further information. The complainant asked for an internal review and the MHRA upheld its position. The case was referred to the Commissioner. The Commissioner found one relevant policy and ensured that this was disclosed to the complainant, but finds on the balance of probabilities that the MHRA does not hold any further relevant recorded information in this case. The Commissioner finds a breach of section 10(1) because the single policy was not provided in twenty working days. However, he does not require any remedial steps to be taken as it has now been provided. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0198 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50373036
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530762

Leicester City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Aug 2011

The complainant requested information from Leicester City Council about the way in which a specific property had been allocated and to whom. The Council refused the request citing section 40(2) (personal information). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, some relevant information was disclosed to the complaint. The Commissioner found procedural breaches in the Council’s handling of the request but requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50387578
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530759

Intellectual Property Office (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Aug 2011

The Secretary of State for Defence provides the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) with a list of technologies that could be considered prejudicial to national security or public safety. If the IPO receives a patent application for an invention employing any of the technology on the list it can issue directions under the Patents Act 1977 which restrict the publication of the patent. The complainant requested a copy of the list notified to the IPO by the Secretary of State. The IPO initially withheld this list under section 24(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the IPO disclosed a redacted version of the list. The Commissioner has concluded that the IPO is entitled to rely on section 24(1) to withhold the redacted parts of the list.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 24 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50380601
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530756

Leicester City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Aug 2011

The complainant made a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Leicester City Council answered the request late and provided the relevant recorded information incrementally. The Information Commissioner finds that Leicester City Council breached section 10(1) because it failed to comply with section 1(1) in 20 working days. He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50366314
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530758

Westminster City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jul 2011

ICO The complainant requested information about remuneration arrangements part-funded by Westminster City Council for a role associated with car parking. The public authority confirmed that it held the requested recorded information, but believed that it was exempt under section 21(1) (information accessible by other means) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the public authority discovered further information, some of which it disclosed. The Commissioner has concluded, in light of the additional information found by the public authority, that section 21 was inappropriately applied in this case. He has also found that the public authority breached section 10(1) in failing to disclose all the information falling within the scope of the request to the complainant. As this has now been disclosed, he requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50362936
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530704

Cardiff Council (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the television programme Doctor Who. The Council refused the request on the basis that the estimated cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit as set out at section 12(1) of the Act and the Fees Regulations. In its internal review the Council stated that it was also relying on section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and found that sections 12(1) and 14(1) of the Act are not engaged. The Commissioner requires that the Council now confirm or deny to the complainant if the information requested is held and, if held, disclose the information or issue a valid refusal notice under section 17(1) of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0215 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50366306
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530714

Department for Work and Pensions (Decision Notice) FS50373233: ICO 25 Aug 2011

ICO The complainant requested the settled legal advice regarding the Health and Safety (Offences) Bill 2008 from the Department for Work and Pensions (the ‘DWP’). The complainant also asked the DWP to provide the other opinions, information or documents referred to at paragraph 16 of an Information Tribunal Decision EA/2010/0044. Additionally he requested all available information relating to research carried out, commissioned, or received by the Government as to the anticipated factual impact of the proposed measure. The requested information was refused by the DWP on the grounds of the exemption provided by section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (the ‘Act’), relating to legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information attracts legal professional privilege and in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0206 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50373233
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530725

Hounslow Homes Limited (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Aug 2011

The complainant requested data from two closed circuit television cameras for a specified time period. The public authority originally stated that the information was exempt under section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 but later stated that it did not hold the requested information at the time of the request. The Commissioner has investigated and found that on the balance of probabilities the information was not held at the time of the request. The Commissioner found procedural breaches in the way the request was handled but there are no practical steps he can order.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50377897
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530754