Tag: Information

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

Brent Council (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Mar 2012

The complainant requested information held by Brent Council (‘the Council’) regarding the Council’s Libraries Transformation Project concerning library provision in the London Borough of Brent. The Information Commissioner’s (‘the Commissioner’) decision is that the Council appropriately refused the request on the grounds of the costs of compliance under section 12(1) of the FOIA. However the Commissioner has also decided that the Council failed to provide appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant in order for him to be able to submit a refined or revised request. It therefore breached section 16(1) of the FOIA. In addition the Council breached section 17(5) in issuing a late refusal notice. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with the section 45 Code of Practice, to enable him to submit a refined his request which may fall within the costs limit.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50413463
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.529265

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Feb 2012

ICO The complainant made a request to the Department of Health (DoH) for a copy of the legal advice given to the previous government in 2006 on the application of EU competition law during the process of establishing the Cooperation and Competition Panel. The DoH withheld this information under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH has correctly applied section 42 FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50429566
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529183

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Feb 2012

The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) regarding the appointment and operation of management receivers. The MOJ stated that no information was held. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ does not hold the requested information. The Information Commissioner requires no further remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0042 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50403934
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529210

Cheshire West and Chester Council (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Feb 2012

ICO The complainant has requested copies of declaration of interests for senior officers at the council. The council initially withheld the information under section 22 because it stated that it intended to publish the information at some point in the future. On review however it decided that that had only been decided after the request was received and so section 22 could not apply. The council therefore disclosed some sections of the information but withheld other information because it was the personal data of its officers and its disclosure would breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998. It therefore applied the exemption in section 40(2) of the Act. The council also asked the complainant to clarify some of the information he requested. It was however unable to establish what information the complainant wished, in spite of the complainant trying to clarify what information he wanted. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire West and Chester Council was correct to apply the exemption in section 40(2) to the information which it redacted.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50419597
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529169

Foreign and Commonwealth Office FS50376975: ICO 16 Jan 2012

ICO (Decision Notice) The complainant submitted two requests to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) both of which sought documents which had apparently been retained by the FCO when a file was passed to The National Archives. The FCO’s initial position was that the information falling within the scope of both requests was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) of FOIA which provides an exemption for information supplied by, or relating to, security bodies. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the FCO informed him that it did not in fact hold the information falling within the scope of the second request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information falling within the scope of the first request is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1). He is also satisfied that the FCO does not in fact hold the information falling within the scope of the second request. However, by incorrectly informing the complainant in its initial responses that it did in fact hold such information, the FCO breached section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. This section places a duty on public authorities to inform applicants whether or not they hold information of the nature that is requested.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50376975
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529072

Oxfordshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Jan 2012

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to complaints received by the Oxfordshire County Council Trading Standards Service about Camerabox Limited. The Commissioner’s decision is that Oxfordshire County Council has correctly applied the exemption in section 44 of the Act, which exempts information from disclosure where that information is subject to a statutory prohibition on information being disclosed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50412358
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529110

Foreign and Commonwealth Office FS50367431: ICO 16 Jan 2012

ICO (Decision Notice) The complainant had requested the Foreign and Commonwealth Office file (67/790) regarding the nationalisation of BP by the Libyan Government (1971). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office correctly relied on section 23 (1) not to communicate the requested information to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50367431
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529071

Foreign and Commonwealth Office FS50385845: ICO 16 Jan 2012

ICO (Decision Notice) The complainant requested information from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) about a number of companies and developments on the Turks and Caicos Islands. The FCO provided some information but withheld the remainder on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27 (international relations) and section 40 (personal data) of the Act. The Commissioner decided that some of the withheld information was in fact environmental information and thus this should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations. Nevertheless the Commissioner is satisfied that this environmental information is exempt from disclosure under the equivalent provisions in that legislation, regulation 12(5)(a) and 13(1).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.a – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50385845
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529073

Her Majestys Revenue and Customs (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jan 2012

ICO The complainant requested information from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) regarding the conduct of a named HMRC officer. HMRC refused to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was correct to apply section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA to this request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50411866
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529079

Ministry of Defence (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Jan 2012

ICO The complainant requested information about a Ministry of Defence (MOD) procurement project for fleet management services, including information about the winning bid. The MOD responded, saying that it would exceed the cost limit to comply with the request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD was not entitled to refuse to provide the requested information under section 12. The Information Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: comply with section 1(1) of FOIA (by disclosing the requested information) or issue a refusal notice compliant with section 17.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50421660
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529100

Foreign and Commonwealth Office FS50366315: ICO 16 Jan 2012

ICO (Decision Notice) The complainant requested all material from the file FCO 39/803 (Future political systems of the Libyan Arab Republic, including trials before the People’s Court, covering dates 1971) that it had not previously released. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office lawfully withheld the requested information, as it is information supplied to it by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters (section 23).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50366315
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529070

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Jan 2012

ICO The complainant has requested information from the Department of Health on the plain packaging of tobacco products. After initially refusing this request on the basis that any information would relate to the formulation of government policy the DOH then, at the internal review, sought to withhold the information as to provide it would exceed the cost limit (section 12 of the FOIA). The complainant asked the Commissioner to consider whether the DOH was able to rely on the section 12 exemption at such a late stage in the investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DOH can rely on section 12, despite the late claiming of this exemption, and the cost estimates provided confirm that to provide the information would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner has also determined that the DOH breached section 16 of the FOIA in handling the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide advice and assistance to allow the complainant to refine the request to bring it within the cost limit.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50403403
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529061

Keele University (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Jan 2012

ICO The complainant has made a 15 point request for information about counter radicalisation at the University of Keele (the ‘University’). The University provided the complainant with the information requested at point 13 of the request. The University neither confirmed nor denied whether it held the rest of the requested information under section 23(5) and 24(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly neither confirmed nor denied whether it holds the information requested at points 1 to 12, 14 and 15. He therefore requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50401717
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529089

University of Surrey (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to communication with another University regarding a student transfer. The University of Surrey (the University) refused the request by relying on the exemption in section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was not obliged to confirm or deny if the requested information was held under section 40(5)(b)(i) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. The full request and the University’s responses, along with further information relating to the background of this case are provided in a confidential annexe.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50503129
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529027

West Sussex County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 11 Dec 2013

ICO The complainant requested various items of information in relation to the Arundel Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) scheme. West Sussex County Council (WSCC) provided the information it had identified as falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that WSCC has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. However, in failing to provide all relevant information within the required timescale, WSCC has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA and in failing to cite an exemption in its refusal notice, it has also breached section 17(1)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50496496
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529029

Aylesbury Vale District Council FS50407261: ICO 16 Jan 2012

ICO The complainant had requested documentation detailing the actions taken by the Trust in relation to the overseas adoption process as recommended by the Report of an Independent Review Panel. The focus of this complaint related to a quality assurance document that had been referenced in the minutes of the Southern Area Adoption Consortium dated 16 November 2007 and related to issues arising from the independent review. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that, on the balance of probabilities, no recorded information is held in relation to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50407261
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529032

Department for Communities and Local Government: ICO 16 Jan 2012

ICO (Decision Notice) The complainant has requested a copy of a review ordered by Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) into the management of the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), and any correspondence, documents and/or meeting notes related to the preparation and consideration of the review. The DCLG applied exceptions to withhold the information on the basis that the information was internal communications, and that it contained information which is subject to legal professional privilege which would adversely affect the course of justice if it was disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DCLG has complied with its obligations under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner does not require the DCLG to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FER0382096
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529051

Audit Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Jan 2012

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of the HB COUNT (Housing Benefit Count Once Use Numerous Times) guidance. The Audit Commission explained to the Commissioner that this is an interactive tool which consists of a series of modules and workbooks which are viewed and completed electronically by the user. The Information Commissioner’s (‘The Commissioner’) decision is that the Audit Commission has appropriately refused to disclose the information in accordance with section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50389454
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529031

Leeds City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 11 Dec 2013

ICO The complainant requested information from West North West Homes Leeds (WNWHL) for varied information with regards to damage caused to his roof tiles. The information requested was refused under section 14(1) of the FOIA as vexatious. During the Commissioner’s investigation in this case WNWHL became part of Leeds City Council (the council) within the Environment and Housing Directorate. The council provided the Commissioner with its submissions for the application of section 14(1) of the FOIA. It also considered that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR was engaged (manifestly unreasonable). Therefore the Commissioner has considered whether the council is correct to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA and 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached regulation 14(5)(a) or the EIR by not advising the complainant of his right to request an internal review under regulation 11 of the EIR for environmental information requests. He does not require any steps to be taken in this case, but the council should ensure there is no repetition of this breach. The Commissioner has gone on to determine that the council are correct to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA and that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is also engaged. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50507698
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528999

Police Service of Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Dec 2013

The complainant requested information about delegated powers for civilian investigators. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) did not provide a response to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI has not responded to the complainant’s request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days and so it breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. However, PSNI subsequently provided a response to the complainant and therefore the Commissioner does not require it to take any further steps to comply with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50509573
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529018

Nottinghamshire Healthcare Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to a review of the Bassetlaw Out Of Hours (OOH) Service. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (the Trust) has correctly applied section 40(2) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50492976
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529014

Her Majestys Revenue and Customs (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Dec 2013

The complainant requested information about corporate liquidations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority did not deal with the request in accordance with the FOIA. This is because the public authority provided its response outside the statutory 20 working days and it has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. A response has now been provided citing section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse the requested information. However the Commissioner requires the public authority to provide advice and assistance to the complainant with a view to helping him refine his request and bring it within the appropriate limit.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50508833
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528990

Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested information broadly concerning employment details of a number of named individuals. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information on the basis of section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50503387
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529017

Oxfordshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Dec 2013

ICO The complainant requested information from Oxfordshire County Council (‘the Council’) about internal proceedings at Oxford and Cherwell Valley College. The council initially refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA, which provides an exclusion for vexatious requests. This was not accepted by the complainant, who asked the Commissioner to investigate whether the council was correct in their refusal. At the invitation of the Commissioner, the council subsequently revised its position and provided a new response to the complainant, as part of which it disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under exemptions provided by the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the FOIA by providing its revised response outside of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50522253
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529016

Ministry of Defence (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested a list of physical, physiological and psychological effects which may be caused by using the invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum on people. The Ministry of Defence (the MOD) provided some information, cited section 26(1)(defence) in respect of a sentence (which was not disputed by the complainant) and stated that no further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probability, the MOD does not hold the requested information. He does not require any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50511234
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.529003

Department for Work and Pensions (Decision Notice) FS50514759: ICO 10 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested information broadly concerning overpayments passed on to private companies by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP has not issued a response to the complainant and has therefore breached section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a response to the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50514759
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528975

Department for Education (Decision Notice) FS50467193: ICO 10 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to ‘The Education Fellowship’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied sections 21, 36, 42 and 43 to part of the withheld information. However, he finds that the DfE has incorrectly applied sections 22, 36 and 43 to other parts of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to disclose the information identified in Appendix 1 at the end of this decision notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 22 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50467193
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528966

Cheshire East Council (Decision Notice) FER0497122: ICO 10 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested a report prepared by the Designated Independent Person appointed by the Council to investigate allegations of misconduct against senior officers within the Council in relation to the development of a waste transfer station. The Council withheld the information under regulations 13 – personal data, 12(5)(d) – confidentiality of proceedings, 12(4)(e) – internal communications, and regulation 12(5)(b) – course of justice and inquiries of a disciplinary nature. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire East Borough Council has not complied with the request in accordance with the Act. In respect of regulation 13, not all the information identified by the Council as personal data, is personal data. Of the information which is personal data, some of it could be disclosed without breaching the data protection principles, however other information can be withheld under regulation 13. Regulation 12(5)(d) is only engaged in respect of some of the information to which it has been applied, however where it is engaged the public interest favours maintaining the exception in respect of the majority of that information. The report does not constitute an internal communication and therefore regulation 12(4)(e) is not engaged. Regulation 12(5) is not engaged on the grounds that the report attracts legal professional privilege, however the Commissioner is satisfied that the disclosure of some of the information would have an adverse effect on an inquiry of a disciplinary nature. Where regulation 12(5)(b) is engaged the public interest favours maintaining the exception in respect of the majority of that information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. to disclose a redacted version of the report as described in the confidential annexe to this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Partly Upheld, EIR 12.5.d – Complaint Partly Upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2013] UKICO FER0497122
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528956

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Dec 2013

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of a letter dated 15 September 2011 from the Chair of NHS South West, to the Appointments Commission. The DoH provided the complainant with the requested letter however it made redactions under section 40(1) and 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH correctly applied section 40(1) and section 40(2) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50503556
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528979

Essex County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 11 Dec 2013

ICO The complainant has asked how many people that have been banned from two different libraries between specific years. Essex County Council (the council) refused to provide the information relying on section 14(1) of the FOIA, as it deemed the request to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50496954
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528981

Department for Education (Decision Notice) FS50501304: ICO 10 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested information broadly concerning Special Advisers’ use of Twitter accounts during their official duties. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education (DfE) does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50501304
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528970

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Dec 2013

The complainant requested a copy of the file(s) held by the public authority in connection with the trial (and associated appeals) of Chambers who was prosecuted for posting a message on Twitter considered to be of a menacing character within the meaning in section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold all the information within the scope of the request (the disputed information) on the basis of the exemptions at sections 32(1) and 42(1) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 32 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50479441
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528964