Tag: Information

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50410999: ICO 25 Jun 2012

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the salary review conducted for the post of Information Commissioner towards the end of Richard Thomas’ tenure in that post. The public authority made a substantial disclosure but withheld a small portion of the requested information. It cited section 42 (legal professional privilege), section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data) and section 35 (ministerial communications) as its bases for doing so. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, MoJ made a further disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ is entitled to withhold the remainder based on the exemptions it has cited.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50410999
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529572

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Jul 2012

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to companies that under-delivered on price reductions under the 2005/2008 Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS). The Department of Health (DoH) provided the complainant with some of the requested information but withheld much of the requested information under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH incorrectly applied section 43(2) FOIA to points 5 to 9 of the clarified request, except in relation to the information identified in paragraph 32. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information relevant to points 5 to 9 of the request, with the DoH bank account details redacted. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0162 has been disposed of by way of a consent order.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50413464
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529617

Police Service of Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 15 May 2012

The complainant requested information relating to the appointment of two individuals to oversee a police investigation into paramilitary-related crime. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (the PSNI) refused to disclose relevant information it confirmed it held under sections 30(1), 31(1), 38(1), 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA. In addition, the PSNI refused to confirm or deny whether it held any other relevant information in reliance on sections 23(5) and 24(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI was entitled to rely on section 30 of the FOIA to refuse to disclose relevant information it held and on sections 23(5) and 24(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any other relevant information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0113 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50394912
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529519

Oxfordshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 21 May 2012

ICO The complainant wrote to Oxfordshire County Council (the ‘council’) and requested correspondence generated since March 2011 which related to Heath Bridge, Church Road drainage and Church Road/Housing Estate drainage pipe since March 2011. The council provided some information but withheld other information because it was considered to be the personal information of third parties or subject to legal professional privilege. The council identified further relevant correspondence which it considered was not subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) because it comprised information held by an elected member in their representative capacity as a local councillor. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council should have handled the request under the EIR rather than the FOIA and that it was late in providing some of the requested information. The Commissioner has upheld the council’s decision to withhold some of the information under the exceptions for personal data and adverse affect to the course of justice. He has also found that some of the requested correspondence is not covered by the EIR as it constitutes information held by a councillor for their own purposes. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50428212
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529518

Seaton Town Council (Decision Notice): ICO 15 May 2012

ICO The complainant has requested information regarding the resignation of Seaton Town Council’s former Town Clerk and other information held in minutes of a Personnel Committee meeting. Seaton Town Council provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing the personal data exemption (section 40(2)) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Seaton Town Council is entitled to rely on the personal data exemption as its basis for withholding the remainder of the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50421257
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529524

Ministry of Defence (Decision Notice): ICO 3 May 2012

ICO The complainant requested information concerning investigations by the Royal Military Police of incidents in Afghanistan in which Afghan civilians have been either killed or wounded by British personnel. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) refused to disclose this information under the exemptions provided by sections 30 (information held for the purposes of an investigation) and 40(2) (personal information of third parties). It also refused to confirm or deny whether any further information was held under sections 23(5) (information relating to, or supplied by, security bodies) and 24(2) (safeguarding national security). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoD has applied the exemptions provided by sections 30, 23(5) and 24(2) correctly. In relation to section 40(2), the Commissioner finds that this exemption was applied correctly in part, but that some of the information withheld under this section is not exempt. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information described in paragraphs 36 to 38 below in relation to which the Commissioner has found that section 40(2) was not engaged.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50426572
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529507

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50427263: ICO 23 May 2012

ICO The complainant has requested from the Ministry of Justice the names and addresses of Respondents in Employment Tribunal cases for England, Wales and Scotland for a specified period in 2011. The Ministry of Justice refused to provide this citing section 32 (Court Records exemption) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice has correctly withheld the requested information on the basis of section 32. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0122 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 32 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50427263
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529510

Ministry of Defence (Decision Notice): ICO 28 May 2012

ICO The complainant requested information about legal costs paid by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to named solicitors with regard to personal injury claims linked to the Porton Down volunteers. The complainant contacted the Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) after he did not receive a response from the MOD. The MOD explained to the Commissioner that the complainant’s previous request concerning Porton Down had been deemed vexatious and a refusal under section 17(5) of the FOIA had been issued. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD correctly applied section 14(1) to the previous request and correctly relied upon section 17(6) when not responding to further related correspondence. The Commissioner does not require the MOD to take any further remedial steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50436416
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529508

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50411133: ICO 15 May 2012

ICO The complainant requested the full information the Information Commissioner had considered in an earlier decision where he ordered a summary of that full information to be disclosed. The full information, agreed between the parties, are the two letters of formal notice in which the European Commission alleged that the UK Government had not properly implemented Directive 95/46/EC.The MOJ relied on sections 27(1) (b), 27(1) (c), 27(1) (d) 27(2) and 35(1) (a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner finds that the exemptions afforded by sections 27(1) (b), 27(1) (c), 27(1) (d) 27(2) and 35(1) (a) are not engaged. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice is in breach of section 1 for having not communicated to the complainant the information he had requested. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the information within the two letters of formal notice in which the European Commission alleged that the UK Government had not implemented the Directive 95/46/EC properly. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 27 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50411133
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529509

Metropolitan Police Service (Decision Notice): ICO 21 May 2012

ICO The complainant requested information relating to whether a named member of the public has been paid compensation in connection with a specific incident involving a senior police officer. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Metropolitan Police Service was entitled neither to confirm nor deny holding information relevant to the request. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50419254
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529503

Durham Constabulary (Decision Notice) FS50426106: ICO 31 May 2012

ICO The complainant has requested information about any forensic service provider used by the public authority and details of the service provided. The public authority confirmed who the provider was but stated that it did not hold any further information. The complainant asked it to contact the provider and ascertain this information; the public authority advised that it was not required to do so under the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority acted correctly. He does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50426106
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529480

Durham Constabulary (Decision Notice) FS50440482: ICO 31 May 2012

ICO The complainant has requested information about how the public authority dealt with one of his previous requests made under the FOIA. The public authority initially found this request to be ‘vexatious’ under section 14 of the FOIA; however, during the Information Commissioner’s investigation it advised that it now wished to rely on section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner agrees that the information, if held, would constitute the complainant’s personal data and that the public authority should have cited section 40(5). The Information Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50440482
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529481

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 21 May 2012

The complainant requested a breakdown of payments made by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (‘the DVLA’) in respect of poor customer service. The DVLA provided some information and stated that no additional information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA holds additional information relevant to the request and he requires the DVLA to either provide the information or issue a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17 of the FOIA. The specific information which the DVLA should consider for disclosure is a table showing the amount of each ex-gratia payment, the summary of reasons for each payment and the Primary cause for each payment for the financial years 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. This information is held within a spreadsheet within the DVLA’s Accounting and Revenue Unit.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50436765
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529479

Land Registry FS50408483: ICO 31 May 2012

ICO (Decision Notice) The complainant requested information, in relation to the Land Registry’s proposed entry into the provision of the land charges information sector. The Land Registry informed the complainant that it held the requested information but it was exempt from disclosure by virtue of sections 35(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Land Registry confirmed that it held additional requested information and that it was relying solely on section 35(1)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information does engage section 35(1)(a) and the public interest test favours the maintenance of the exemption for the majority of it. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the withheld information that constitutes the fees charged by various local authorities for local land charge searches and the information the Land Registry categorises as being in the public domain.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50408483
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529494

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Decision Notice): ICO 15 May 2012

ICO The complainant has requested copies of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) skeleton arguments for 6 specific cases in relation to which judgements have been given. HMRC refused to disclose this information under section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50431583
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529488

Financial Services Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 29 May 2012

ICO The complainant requested the following information in relation to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report of 2008 into the Equitable Life crisis in 1998:- I wish to identify the names of the eight life companies referred to in para. 74 who gave ‘general cause for concern’ and the one life company (other than Equitable Life) who was ‘of particular concern’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has incorrectly applied the exemption under section 43(2) of FOIA to the requested information. The FSA has also breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50417870
Bailii
England and Wales

Information, Financial Services

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529482

Cabinet Office (Decision Notice): ICO 16 May 2012

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of the blog written by the Chief Executive of the National School of Government. During the Information Commissioner’s investigation, when conducting a very late internal review, this was provided. The complainant then queried some of the redactions and further information was then provided; this satisfied the complainant. However, the complainant still required a decision notice to cover procedural breaches. The Information Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0116 has been disposed of by way of a consent order.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50428650
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529453

Merton London Borough Council (Decision Notice) FER0428392: ICO 26 Apr 2012

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Merton (the council) concerning a contract. The council disclosed the information with the exception of some that it considered was excepted under regulation 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR), the exception relating to commercial confidences. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld information using regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0108 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FER0428392
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529414

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50419106: ICO 2 Apr 2012

ICO The complainant has requested a file recording a 1961 trial for a breach of the Official Secrets Act. Some of this file was withheld under the exemption provided by section 23(1) (information relating to, or supplied by, security bodies). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ applied section 23(1) correctly and so it is not required to disclose any further parts of this file. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0099 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50419106
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529419

Merton London Borough Council (Decision Notice) FS50428141: ICO 26 Apr 2012

ICO The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Merton (the council) concerning a contract. The council disclosed the information with the exception of some that it considered was excepted under regulation 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR), the exception relating to commercial confidences. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld information using regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50428141
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529415

Manchester City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Apr 2012

ICO The complainant requested information from Manchester City Council (the council) relating to outsourcing to either Barristers Chambers or solicitors at employment tribunals. The council supplied the requested information outside of the 20 working day time frame. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA) because it did not supply the information within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50434955
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529412

Land Registry FS50427467: ICO 6 Mar 2012

ICO (Decision Notice) The complainant has requested information from Land Registry about the initial and subsequent sales of flats in a specified housing development dating from 1991, together with sales completion dates. Land Registry advised the complainant that the requested information was available in hard copy or via its website on payment of a fee, but failed to reference any exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Land Registry has confirmed it was relying on section 21 of the FOIA in that the information is reasonably accessible to the complainant. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Land Registry was correct in considering that the requested information is reasonably accessible via the means specified to the complainant; however Land Registry breached the FOIA by failing to respond to the request under the FOIA and by not issuing a valid refusal notice. The Information Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0058 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50427467
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529318

Westminster City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Mar 2012

ICO The complainant has requested information concerning the review of the licence of a nightclub which had been the subject of noise pollution complaints. Westminster City Council (the Council) refused to disclose this information and cited the exception from the EIR provided by regulation 12(5)(b) (adverse effect on the course of justice). Apart from in relation to communications between the Council and the complainant, the Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has applied this exception correctly and so it is not required to disclose the information. In relation to correspondence between the Council and the complainant, the decision of the Commissioner is that the exception is not engaged. The Council also breached the requirements of the EIR in that it did not respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt and it should ensure that it has appropriate procedures in place to respond to requests promptly. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the information in relation to which the Commissioner has found that regulation 12(5)(b) is not engaged, that is all information within the scope of the request that records communications between the Council and the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Partly Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FER0399076
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529367

Southern Education and Library Board (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Mar 2012

ICO The complainant requested under FOIA the minutes of a meeting that occurred on 5 May 2011. This meeting concerned an individual making allegations about their treatment at a school. The Southern Education and Library Board (‘the SLB’) refused to provide the information applying section 40 [personal data]. It maintained its view at internal review. It also privately provided the complainant with his own personal data, which were extracts of the said minutes. The complainant referred the case to the Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’). The Commissioner finds that section 40(1) [first party personal data] was appropriately applied to the complainant’s own personal data and that section 40(2) [third party personal data] was appropriately applied to the rest of the information which was someone else’s personal data. He has found procedural breaches of sections 17(1), 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c) but requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50428735
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529351

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Mar 2012

The complainant requested a range of information relating to AssetCo London Ltd’s management of London Fire Brigade’s fleet of vehicles. London Fire Brigade is run by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA), who are the relevant public authority for the purposes of Schedule One of the FOIA (Schedule One, paragraph 20). LFEPA provided some of the requested information but refused to provide the specific values of payment ‘abatements’ applied in instances where AssetCo London Ltd failed to repair or replace vehicles within the contractual time limits. LFEPA argued that disclosing this information would prejudice the commercial interests of both parties. 0The relevant exemption to disclosure is provided by section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that LFEPA failed to respond to the request within the statutory time limit and that it incorrectly applied section 43(2) to withhold the value of payment abatements. The Commissioner requires LFEPA to disclose the withheld information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50419763
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529324

Dr Barbara Allan (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Mar 2012

The complainant has requested when an individual Doctor at the ‘the Docs’ practice was absent between two dates. The practice (on its doctors’ behalf) replied that it consider that the request was vexatious and applied section 14(1) to it. The complaint was made to the Commissioner. During the course of his investigation, the practice also applied section 40(2) [third party personal data]. The Commissioner finds that section 14(1) was applied inappropriately and that a reasonable public authority could not find the request vexatious. However, he has found that section 40(2) [third party personal data] was appropriately applied in this case. He has also found procedural breaches under section 17(1) and 17(1)(b). He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case because they are not possible to remedy through remedial steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50433371
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529288

Dr Matthew Joslin (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Mar 2012

The complainant has requested when an individual Doctor at the ‘the Docs’ practice was absent between two dates. The practice (on its doctors’ behalf) replied that it consider that the request was vexatious and applied section 14(1) to it. The complaint was made to the Commissioner. During the course of his investigation, the practice also applied section 40(2) [third party personal data]. The Commissioner finds that section 14(1) was applied inappropriately and that a reasonable public authority could not find the request vexatious. However, he has found that section 40(2) [third party personal data] was appropriately applied in this case. He has also found procedural breaches under section 17(1) and 17(1)(b). He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case because they are not possible to remedy through remedial steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50433373
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529289

East Staffordshire Borough Council (Decision Notice) FS50408623: ICO 5 Mar 2012

ICO The complainant requested the Home Office to release the names of its staff involved in an immigration decision regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office’s reliance on section 40(2), not to release the names, was correct. However the Commissioner, on a balance of probabilities, finds that the Home Office is unlikely to have informed the complainant of the totality of the requested information it holds. He therefore directs that the Home Office informs the complainant whether it holds additional information and, if it does, provide him (i.e. the complainant) with the additional information or issue a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50408623
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529294

Dr Tim Worden (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Mar 2012

The complainant has requested when an individual Doctor at the ‘the Docs’ practice was absent between two dates. The practice (on its doctors’ behalf) replied that it consider that the request was vexatious and applied section 14(1) to it. The complaint was made to the Commissioner. During the course of his investigation, the practice also applied section 40(2) [third party personal data]. The Commissioner finds that section 14(1) was applied inappropriately and that a reasonable public authority could not find the request vexatious. However, he has found that section 40(2) [third party personal data] was appropriately applied in this case. He has also found procedural breaches under section 17(1) and 17(1)(b). He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case because they are not possible to remedy through remedial steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50425715
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529290

Equality and Human Rights Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Mar 2012

The complainant asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission for information about the number of ‘requests for assistance’ made by Irish people and their outcome. The EHRC explained that they could not work out this information without doing work beyond the costs limit and applied section 12(1) of FOIA. The complainant referred a complaint to the Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the EHRC applied section 12(1) appropriately in this case. However, it failed to offer reasonable advice and assistance and so breached the requirements of section 16(1). The Commissioner has considered what would constitute reasonable advice and assistance and has concluded that there are only two possible options. He has elected to say what they are in this decision notice and therefore used his discretion not to order any remedial steps in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50411493
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529297

Department for Transport (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Mar 2012

ICO The complainant has requested information about risk assessments conducted by the DFT that demonstrate the need for compulsory body scanners at UK airports. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DFT was correct to withhold the information on the basis of section 24(1) and to neither confirm nor deny that the risk assessment showed the UK to be at a greater or lesser risk of terrorist attack than the rest of the EU by virtue of section 24(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 24 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50419647
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529283

Lancashire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Mar 2012

ICO The complainant made a request for information about the Constabulary’s response to a spate of thefts of cabling in his local area. He was particularly interested in the investigations it conducted and the extent to which it had publicised the thefts. The Constabulary addressed the complainant’s general concerns in its response, but failed to respond to his specific request for information. After the Information Commissioner’s intervention the Constabulary disclosed the information it held which was relevant to the request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire Constabulary holds information which it failed to confirm it holds and failed to disclose to the complainant by the completion of the internal review or the time for statutory compliance. This is a breach of sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA. Since this information was supplied during the investigation the Information Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50413452
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529315

Alder Hey Childrens NHS Foundation Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Mar 2012

The complainant has requested a copy of the Alder Hey Centre report. Alder Hey Children’s Centre NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) refused to provide a copy of the report under section 31 and section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50426474
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000 36
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529255

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Feb 2012

ICO The complainant has requested information about costs associated with the early retirement of the Chief Executive of Wirral Borough Council. The public authority stated that some of the requested information was not held, and refused some information under the provisions of the exemption at section 40 of FOIA: that disclosure would breach the data protection principles. The complainant has appealed against the refusal of information, and about the public authority’s claim that some specified information is not held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wirral Borough Council has incorrectly applied the exemption in this case and has therefore breached section 1(1)(b) of FOIA. He finds that the public authority correctly stated that some of the information requested was not held. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under section 40 of FOIA -‘ namely: a report which was considered as Agenda item 3 by the Council’s Employment and Appointments Committee on 17 August 2010.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50406724
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529253