Tag: Information

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50290504: ICO 31 Mar 2011

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the breaches of the Data Protection European Directive that the European Commission has alleged have been committed by the UK. The public authority refused the request, citing the exemptions provided by sections 27(1)(c) (prejudice to the interests of the UK abroad) and 27(2) (confidential information obtained from a state other than the UK, or from an international organisation or international court) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner finds that neither of the exemptions cited by the public authority are engaged in relation to request (i) and, in relation to the other requests, that these exemptions are engaged but that the public interest in the maintenance of these exemptions does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure for request (ii), the information caught by requests (iii) and (iv) was correctly withheld. The Commissioner also found that the public authority breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act in failing to disclose the information caught by requests (i) and (ii) within twenty working days of receipt of the request. The Commissioner has also found that the public authority breached section 17(1) by responding to the request late. The public authority is now required to disclose the information caught by requests (i) and (ii). Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0116 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 27 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50290504
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530367

Lancashire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Mar 2011

ICO The complainant requested information about the issue of ‘disquiet’ caused within the Professional Standards Department (‘PSD’) of Lancashire Constabulary (‘the Constabulary’). The Constabulary responded and advised the complainant that it did not hold information in respect of his request. The Commissioner investigated and has concluded that on the balance of probabilities the requested information is not held by the Constabulary and therefore the Constabulary complied with section 1(1)(a) in stating that the information was not held.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50346939
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530350

Department for Culture Media and Sport (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Mar 2011

ICO The complainant asked the DCMS (the public authority) to provide information relating to EnglandNet. The public authority refused to disclose this using the exemptions in sections 12, 27, 42 and 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). During the course of the investigation it determined that it wished to cite section 12 in relation to the entire request. The Commissioner’s decision is that compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. He has not therefore considered the applicability of the other exemptions The complaint is not upheld. The public authority’s handling of the request also resulted in breaches of certain procedural requirements of the Act as identified in this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50346816
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530307

Lancashire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Mar 2011

The complainant made an information request for ‘a list of all crimes in which Lancashire Police determine that drunkenness is a valid defence from prosecution’. The public authority relied on section 12 to deny the request (exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The complainant-andtrade;s complaint to the Commissioner however was limited to whether the public authority had complied with section 16 of the Act (duty to provide advice and assistance). The Commissioner, after investigating and considering the matter, found that section 16 had not been complied with and requires the Constabulary to fulfil the obligations imposed by section 16 in the circumstances of this case.
Section of Act/EIR andamp; Finding: FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50316909
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530349

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Mar 2011

ICO The complainant requested public documents from the Home Office UK Border Agency relating to the applications for naturalisation of two named individuals. The public authority refused the request on the basis that the requested information constitutes the personal data of the individuals concerned and disclosure would breach the principles set out in the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner found the public authority in breach of the procedural requirements of sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) in its handling of the request because it failed to inform the complainant that it did not hold any public documents relating to the request. However the Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50316749
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530340

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Mar 2011

ICO The complainant requested a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, held on 11 January 2010. The public authority disclosed a limited amount of information in relation to the identities of the attendees and the topics on the meeting’s agenda. However, it withheld the majority of the information under section 35(1)(a). During the investigation of the case the public authority disclosed much of the previously withheld information. However, it continued to withhold some information under section 35(1)(a). Additionally, it also relied upon section 40(2) to withhold some information. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that the public authority was correct to rely upon section 35(1)(a) to withhold some of the information in question. However, he concluded that section 40(2) is not engaged in relation to some of the withheld information, and that therefore this information should be disclosed. In addition to this, the Commissioner also found that the public authority did not meet with the requirements of sections 1, 10 and 17.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50308797
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530313

Keele University (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Mar 2011

The complainant made a request to the public authority for information regarding animal research. The public authority responded to the request by informing the complainant that some of the information was not held and that where information was held it was being refused under section 38(1)(b) of the Act (Health and Safety). The public authority upheld its decision to refuse the request at the internal review stage. The Commissioner has considered the complaint and has found that some of the information which the public authority refused to disclose was not exempt under section 38(1)(b). For some information the Commissioner has found that the section 38(1)(b) is engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner now requires the public authority to disclose the information he has decided is not exempt within 35 calendar days of the date of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50303734
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.530348

Cabinet Office (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Mar 2011

ICO The complainant requested information relating to consultations with interested parties following the government’s proposal to strengthen the protection for Royal Family papers under the Freedom of Information Act. The proposal was made in view of the recommendation by the Dacre review of the 30 year rule that the government should, in parallel with adopting a reduction to a 15 year rule, also consider whether there was a case for enhanced protection for particularly sensitive information. The public authority withheld information on the basis of the exemptions at sections 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy), 37(1)(a) (communications with Her Majesty etc), 40(2) (personal data), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner found that the exemption at section 37(1)(a) was engaged in respect of all of the information held and in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. He however found the public authority in breach of section 17(1) (failure to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 37 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50269239
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530281

Brent Council (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Mar 2011

ICO The complainant requested information concerning the council’s commissioning of a private company to renegotiate residential care fees for people with mental health disabilities. The council refused disclosure of the information under s41(1) and s43(2) of the Act. The Commissioner decided that the exemptions were not engaged and ordered disclosure of the information. He identified items of personal data that required redaction prior to disclosure. The Commissioner found that the council failed to comply with s1(1)(a), s1(1)(b), s10(1), s17(1)(a), s17(1)(b), s(17)(1)(c) and s17(3)(b) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50258669
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530277

Avon and Somerset Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Mar 2011

ICO The complainant made two requests to Avon and Somerset Constabulary (the Constabulary), both of which have been considered by the Commissioner in this Notice. The first request relates to investigations into the death of the complainant’s father; the second to alleged advice given to the complainant’s MEP by the Constabulary’s Chief Constable, confirming that a police surgeon had been investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC). Following investigation, the Commissioner has concluded that the Constabulary does not hold any relevant information to either request. However, in not citing this in its initial responses to the complainant’s requests or making this sufficiently clear in the outcome of the internal review, the Constabulary breached section 1(1)(a). Furthermore, in not replying to the complainant’s first request within the prescribed 20 working days the Constabulary breached section 10(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50347221
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530270

Her Majestys Revenue and Customs (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Feb 2011

ICO The complainant made two requests to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for advice and guidance relating to managerial responsibility towards the welfare of staff. With reference to the first request, HMRC stated that it did not hold any specific information, a position that the Commissioner agrees with. In relation to the second request, HMRC considered that it had complied with the request by providing internally published guidance. The Commissioner, however, has found that the interpretation of the request adopted by HMRC was too narrow. Having reconsidered a broader interpretation of the request, HMRC has confirmed that it holds additional information which is relevant to the complainant’s request. However, due to the nature of the searches that would need to be undertaken to retrieve this information, HMRC estimated that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit for the purposes of section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner upholds HMRC’s application of section 12(1) but in not informing the complainant of this application it breached section 17(5). In failing to providing advice and assistance following its refusal under section 12(1) it also breached section 16(1). In relation to the first request the Commissioner also finds it breached section 10(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0053 allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50316218
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530209

Norfolk Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Feb 2011

ICO The complainant requested Norfolk Constabulary to disclose a copy of the report or similar document it compiled, for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service, about a fraud case. Norfolk Constabulary confirmed it holds the requested information but refused to disclose it on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure by virtue of sections 30(1) and (2) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that the information was correctly withheld in accordance with section 30. He requires no steps to be taken by the public authority. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0057 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50317438
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530228

Department of Health (Decision Notice) FS50303047: ICO 10 Jan 2011

ICO The complainant requested several pieces of information surrounding the cost of the swine flu vaccination programme. Although the DoH provided some information, it withheld details of the purchase price of the swine flu vaccine under sections 41(1)(b) and 43(2). During the Commissioner’s investigation the DoH also sought to rely upon section 44(1)(b), on the basis that disclosure of this information was prohibited by the Public Contract Regulations 2006. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that some of the withheld information was exempt under section 43(2). However, he also found that some of the information should be disclosed as the DoH had incorrectly applied sections 41(1)(b), 43(2) and 44(1)(b). In addition to this, the Commissioner also decided that the DoH had not met with the requirements of sections 1, 10 and 17.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50303047
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530139

Cardiff Council (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Jan 2011

ICO The complainant requested information about any discussions the Council may have had with the BBC, the Welsh Assembly Government and a number of companies/organisations in respect of the Council’s ‘Media Capital’ proposal and the BBC Wales’ requirements for relocation. The Council refused to either confirm or deny whether it held information relevant to this request by relying on section 41(2) (information provided in confidence) and section 43(3) (commercial interests) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that if it were held by the Council, a significant proportion of the information is likely to be environmental information as defined by the EIR and that the Council cannot therefore rely on section 41(2) and 43(3) for this. The Commissioner also finds that, to the extent that information, if held by the Council, falls under the provisions of the Act, neither sections 41(2) nor 43(3) are engaged. He has also recorded a number of procedural breaches of both the Act and the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50247653
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530131

Lancashire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Jan 2011

ICO The complainant requested information about the duties and whereabouts of Lancashire Constabulary’s Chief Legal Advisor during specific days in May 2009. This request was initially made using a pseudonym. The complainant repeated the request in his own name and at that time he also requested the Advisor’s remuneration and salary and the Constabulary’s legal department budget over the past five years. The Constabulary’s applied section 14(1) (vexatious request) to that part of the request which had previously been made under a pseudonym, and this was the basis of the complainant’s appeal to the Commissioner. The Commissioner has considered the case carefully and upholds the Constabulary’s application of section 14(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0015 allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50311574
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530161

House of Commons (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Jan 2011

ICO The complainant requested from the public authority details of its intranet contents, namely its root page and a site map or summary of its contents. During the investigation the Commissioner has found that the public authority provided all the requested information within the time for complying with requests provided by section 10 of the Act. The Commissioner accepts the position that the public authority does not exist as an entity during the dissolution of Parliament and is therefore not a public authority for the purposes of the Act for that time, so cannot be under a duty to comply. In accepting this, the Commissioner also considers the public authority’s response to have been prompt.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50319055
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530156

Department of Health (Decision Notice) FS50326236: ICO 10 Jan 2011

ICO The complainant requested a full extract of the minutes from the NHS Management Board in July 2006 that mentioned ‘new management arrangements’ that were referred to in a letter dated 21 August 2006. The public authority provided an extract of the minutes dated 19 July 2006 and confirmed that no further relevant recorded information was held in respect to this request. It confirmed its position in its internal review. The complainant referred the following things to the Commissioner: She believed further relevant recorded information was held in respect to her request; andShe believed that the public authority had failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance to her.The Commissioner has determined that on the balance of probabilities the public authority does not hold any further relevant recorded information. He also finds that the public authority complied with its obligations under section 16(1) and does not uphold the complaint. He therefore requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50326236
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530140

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Decision Notice) FS50262409: ICO 24 Jan 2011

The complainant submitted 8 requests to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which all focused on two individuals who had been detained in Guantanamo Bay. The FCO provided the complainant with some information in response to these requests but withheld further information on the basis of sections 23(1), 27(1)(a), 32(1)(a), 32(1)(b), 35(1)(a), 35(1)(c) and 42(1) of the Act. The Commissioner is satisfied that these exemptions have been applied correctly with the exception of a limited amount of information which the FCO now accepts is in the public domain. The Commissioner has ordered the FCO to disclose this latter category of information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0049 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 32 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50262409
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530144

Camden Council (Decision Notice) FS50439476: ICO 10 Dec 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to the Housing Department at the London Borough of Camden (‘the council’). The Commissioner’s decision is that Hounslow Homes has correctly applied the exemption for personal data. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50439476
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530057

Camden Council (Decision Notice) FS50442020: ICO 10 Dec 2012

The complainant requested the position title for each person employed by the London Borough of Camden (‘the council’) in 2009. Alongside each employee’s position title, the complainant requested their: (1) pay grade; (2) total overtime payments, rate of overtime and basis for any overtime; (3) bonus payments; (4) hours worked in each month; and (5) their gender. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly withheld the following information: total overtime payments, the basis for any overtime and the number of hours worked in each month under section 40(2) of the Act (personal data belonging to a third party). However, the Commissioner is of the view that the council is not entitled to withhold each post holder’s salary band, overtime rate and gender under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the gender, salary band and overtime rate of each person employed by the council in 2009 alongside their post title. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50442020
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530058

Land Registry FER0454056: ICO 18 Dec 2012

ICO (Decision Notice) The complainant has requested all information held by the Land Registry in relation to a specific land title. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Land Registry has correctly applied the exemption at section 21 of the FOIA to the information it holds as that information is reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means. The Commissioner has also decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the Land Registry does not hold the 1996 file. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FER0454056
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530086

Merton London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Dec 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to car parking at Wimbledon Park and Morden Park during Wimbledon tennis fortnight in June 2011. London Borough of Merton (the councii) provided some of the requested information but refused to provide details of income received for parking at Morden Park citing the exemption for commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied the commercial interests exemption to the withheld information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50455878
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530095

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50452383: ICO 29 Nov 2012

ICO The complainant requested information related to rent review negotiations regarding a specific property (Tay House, Glasgow) occupied by the public authority and also for all properties occupied and/or operated by public authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the public authority held information (five emails) within the scope of the request in relation to Tay House, Glasgow. However, on a balance of probabilities, it did not hold additional information in respect of this request. In relation to the wider request in connection with all properties occupied and/or operated by the public authority, the public authority was entitled to rely on section 12(2) to the extent that it could not determine if it held all of the information within the scope of the request. It was additionally entitled to rely on section 12(1) to the extent that it could confirm it held some information (i.e. in relation to the Prison Estate) but could not provide the information because it would exceed the appropriate limit to do so. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose copies of the five emails from 2005 related to the Tay House rent review of 2005 subject to the application of other provisions in FOIA including exemptions.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50452383
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530026

Merton London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Nov 2012

The complainant requested information relating to the council’s road and footpath renewal programme. After initially responding under the FOI Act the Commissioner issued a decision notice requiring the council to consider the request under the Regulations. Merton Council responded stating that section 12(4)(b) was applicable (that the request was manifestly unreasonable). It did provide some information in response to the request and stated that other information was not held. The complainant narrowed his request. The council then provided further information but maintained that some information was not held and that other information was exempt under Regulation 12(4)(b). The complainant argues that the council must hold further information which should be disclosed to him. The Commissioner’s decision is that Merton Council was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) in response to part 4 of the request. The council considered part 1 of the request to have been narrowed by the complainant when finding that no further information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that council was correct to consider that the complainant had narrowed his request. The Commissioner is satisfied that, other than for part 4 of the request, on a balance of probability the council does not hold further information falling within the scope of this request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FER0435640
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.530024

Department for Business Innovation and Skills (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Nov 2012

ICO The complainant made a request to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) for copies of information related to a complaint that had been made against an employment agency and which had been investigated by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, a part of BIS. BIS refused the request under the exemption in section 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA by virtue of section 9(4)(a) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973. The section 30 (investigations) exemption was also applied. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and found that section 44 is engaged for only some of the withheld information. Where section 44 does not apply the Commissioner found that the section 30 exemption was engaged but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant redacted copies of the information falling within the scope of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50449918
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529993