Tag: Information

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

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

Hampshire County Council (Decision Notice) FS50508440: ICO 17 Dec 2013

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of an email and its attachments which he believes is held by Hampshire County Council. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Hampshire County Council does not hold the information sought by the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further steps in this matter.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50508440
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528989

Department for Transport (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested from the Department for Transport statistics for peak and off peak loadings of rail passengers on the West Coast Main line. The Department for Transport has withheld this information under the exemptions in sections 41, 43(2) and 21 the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Transport has successfully engaged the exemptions in section 41 and 21 of the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore does not require the Department for Transport to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50483547
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528973

City College Peterborough (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Dec 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to the qualifications and experience of two members of staff from City College Peterborough (the college). The Commissioner’s decision is that the college has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the college to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50495651
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528960

Department for Education (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Dec 2013

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department for Education (DfE) for any emails sent from the private accounts of the Secretary of State and three of his special advisers which concern official government business and which refer to the Building Schools for the Future Programme and the Sandwell Local Authority Area. The DfE initially informed the complainant that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. However, during the course of his investigation the Commissioner found that two emails identified by the DfE would fall within the scope of the request. The DfE then sought to withhold this information by relying on the exemptions in section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), section 40(2) (personal information) and section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has considered whether this information should be withheld and found that the information is exempt under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50483308
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528967

City of York Council (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Dec 2013

The complainant has made two requests for information to City of York Council (‘the Council’). The Council did not respond in full to the complainant’s first request within the twenty working day period provided by the EIR and failed to respond to his second request until the Information Commissioner’s intervention in this matter. The Commissioner’s decision is that City of York Council has failed to comply with regulation 5(2) of the EIR in respect of the complainant’s first request and failed to comply with section 10 of the FOIA in respect of his second request. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken by the public authority in respect of this complaint.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FER0504737
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528961

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Dec 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to correspondence and or communications with any Director General of the BBC and or Chairman of the BBC exchanged with six individuals of the Royal family. The BBC explained that certain parts of the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining information is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50508284
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528949

Audit Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Dec 2013

ICO The complainant has requested from the Audit Commission copies of all statistical data provided by local authorities in their latest annual return of the Fraud and Corruption Survey. The Audit Commission considered that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged and that, in all the circumstances, the public interest arguments in favour of withholding the requested information outweigh the arguments in favour of disclosure. He does not therefore require the Audit Commission to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50479296
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528947

Shropshire Council: ICO 27 Nov 2013

(Decision Notice) The complainant has requested information regarding a residential site licence made by a caravan park tenants association. Shropshire Council (‘the council’) withheld information under the exception at regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner has decided that the council has not provided sufficient evidence to apply this exception. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FER0501716
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.528926

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Nov 2013

ICO The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department of Health (DoH) for information regarding confidentiality agreements and information relating to the United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust and the Staffordshire Hospitals Trust. The DoH refused the request under section 12 of FOIA on the grounds that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH was not obliged to comply with the request as the cost would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12 of FOIA. The Commissioner also found that the DoH complied with the duty to provide advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50499345
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528867

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Decision Notice) FS50492408: ICO 5 Nov 2013

ICO The complainant has made a request to Defra for information relating to flood insurance. It refused to disclose the information it held relevant to the scope of this request under section 35(1)(a), section 41 and section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra has correctly applied section 35(1)(a) FOIA in this case and this exemption is applicable to all of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50492408
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528862

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested information on the number of complaints on misleading news coverage on devolved matters. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of -‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50510443
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528841

Worcestershire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested the overview report for a specific Serious Case Review (SCR) from Worcestershire County Council (the council). The council refused to provide the information relying on section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considered that the information was third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50476873
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528837

Westminster City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Oct 2013

ICO The complainant requested information about the nationality or ethnicity of housing benefit claimants in the borough of the City of Westminster. Westminster City Council (the Council) initially denied holding the information. It subsequently confirmed that it held the requested information but said that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit (section 12 of the FOIA).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50502938
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528831

Wiltshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application. Wiltshire Council provided some of the requested information but refused other information under the exceptions for manifestly unreasonable and adverse affect to the course of justice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FER0493996
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528832

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Oct 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information with regards to an independent consultant company being used by Wirral Borough Council (the council). The information sought was in relation to the work carried out by the consultancy company and monies paid by the council to them. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10 of the FOIA by not providing a response within 20 working days. As the council has now provided a response, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50496446
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528836

Southwark Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Oct 2013

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the public authority’s enforcement responsibilities under the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884, specifically in connection with Cross Bones disused burial ground. The public authority withheld the requested information under the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR on the basis that it is legally privileged information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the requested information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(b). 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

[2013] UKICO FS50505335
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528820

Information Commissioner (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Oct 2013

The complainant requested copies of the legal advice referred to by the Information Commissioner, Chris Graham, in his written evidence to the Leveson Inquiry concerning the ICO’s decision not to pursue prosecutions against journalists for unlawfully obtaining personal data. The ICO originally identified two pieces of legal advice held as part of ‘Operation Motorman’ as falling within the scope of the request. It refused the request under section 14(2) on the grounds that the request was a repeat of an earlier request. Later the ICO dropped section 14(2) and relied on section 21 to withhold the information on the basis that the two pieces of legal advice had already been provided to the complainant in response to the earlier request. Ultimately, the ICO argued that the information falling within the scope of the request was not limited to just the two documents originally identified. Instead it argued that the external legal advice referred to consisted of the entire body of external legal advice that had been obtained during Operation Motorman. It went on to withhold this information under section 21 on the basis that the information was on the Leveson Inquiry website. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request could not be refused under section 14(2). The information provided in response to the earlier request is exempt under section 21. Information redacted from one of those documents is exempt under section 40(2). The remaining external legal advice falling within the scope of the request is not exempt under section 21 as the ICO has failed to identify to the complainant what advice that is or clearly direct him to it. The ICO did not breach its duties to provide advice and assistance under section 16. The ICO should provide the additional external legal advice which falls within the scope of the request or apply appropriate exemptions. This includes the information redacted from December 2003 advice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50483981
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528773

Metropolitan Police Service (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested information related to two criminal cases. During the Commissioner’s investigation some information was provided, however, the public authority would neither confirm nor deny holding further information citing sections 30(3) and 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner accepts that these exemptions apply and so the public authority had no duty to confirm or deny holding this information. He does not, therefore, require it to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50497490
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528783

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Oct 2013

ICO The complainant requested information about cases scheduled to be heard in Cambridge Magistrates Court. HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), an agency of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), refused to provide the requested information, citing section 32 of the FOIA (court records). The Commissioner’s decision is that HMCTS was entitled to withhold the requested information. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 32 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50506566
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528796

Mid Devon District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to the development of a site. Mid Devon District Council refused the request, citing the exemption for commercial interests (section 43(2) of the FOIA). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the council disclosed the information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in failing to provide the requested information within 20 working days, Mid Devon District Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50496280
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528784

Mole Valley District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Oct 2013

The complainant requested legal advice obtained by Mole Valley District Council (‘the council’). The council withheld the information on the basis that it had been provided under legal professional privilege, and was therefore exempt under regulation 12(5)(b) of the Environment Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’) The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly identified the information as legally privileged, and was therefore correct to rely upon the exception provided by regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50501807
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528798

North Devon District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Oct 2013

The complainant requested financial information in relation to a planning application by a third party. The council withheld the information on the basis that Regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) applied. However during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the council disclosed the information to the complainant. This was because the third party sought to use the information as part of his evidence during a planning appeal. The planning inspector in charge of the appeal said to the third party that if he chose to use the information in his evidence in the appeal then he would order the information to be made available to the public. This therefore destroyed any confidentiality which the information was held under and so the council relinquished the exceptions it had been relying upon. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Devon District Council has breached Regulation 5(2) in that it did not disclose the information to the complainant within 20 working days. However under the circumstances of the case the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FER0497094
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528802

Cleveland Police (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Oct 2013

ICO The complainant requested information from Cleveland Police about a contract and payments to a named company. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, Cleveland Police reviewed its application of exemptions, confirming that it considered sections 22 (information intended for future publication) and 31 (law enforcement) apply to the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cleveland Police was incorrect to apply sections 22 and 31 to the information it confirmed that it holds. He also found procedural errors. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose to the complainant the information relating to points 1, 6 and 7 of the request that it provided to the Commissioner during the course of his investigation; and issue a fresh response in relation to the remaining information within the scope of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 22 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50488394
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528739

Department for Business Innovation and Skills (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to the system of specific designation of courses for higher education student support. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) provided most of the information it held, or otherwise directed the complainant to where relevant information could be located, but withheld the remainder under section 40(2) (third party personal data), section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The complainant has confirmed that he does not require the Commissioner to consider the information withheld under section 40(2) of FOIA. It has therefore been left to the Commissioner to consider DBIS’ application of the other exemptions. The Commissioner has found that section 42(1) of FOIA is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, he has also decided that section 43(2) of FOIA is not engaged and therefore requires BIS to disclose the information to which this particular exemption has been applied.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50491917
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528743

Governing Body of Reading School (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Oct 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the 11+ entrance test for Reading School (the school) which took place in October 2012.The Commissioner’s decision is that Reading School has correctly applied section 36(2)(c) to part of the request. However, he also finds that the school has incorrectly applied section 40(2) to the other part of the request. The Commissioner requires the school to disclose to the complainant the information withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50504859
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528758

Fenland District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Oct 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to public funding for a specified planning application. Fenland District Council (the council) stated that no relevant information was held and provided an explanation as to the planning history of the application. The Commissioner is satisfied that the council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FER0487599
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528753

Department for Education (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested information about the application by the Russell Education Trust in partnership with the Turing House School dated 20 December 2012 for funding of a new free school. The Department for Education (DfE) refused to disclose this information under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and section 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(i) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50498159
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528744

House of Commons (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Oct 2013

ICO The complainant requested a list of Freemasons working in the Houses of Parliament. Other than a voluntary disclosure via the Register of Financial Interests where MPs may optionally declare membership of the Freemasons as an unremunerated interest, the House of Commons said it did not otherwise collect or hold the requested information. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the HOC, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold the requested information. He therefore does not require the HOC to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50505606
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528772

Charity Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to the Atlantic Bridge organisation. The Charity Commission said that some of the requested information was not held. It provided the complainant with some of the information requested which was held. It withheld the remaining information under section 31(1)(g) with subsection (2)(c), (f), (g) and (h), section 21, section 40(2) and section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it did provide the complainant with some of the withheld information but redacted it under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(f) to the withheld information and section 21 FOIA to the part of the withheld information. He also considers that the Charity Commission correctly made the redactions to the information it disclosed during the course of the investigation under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50492205
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528734

Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Oct 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information obtained by the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland relating to a complaint he submitted to him. The Ombudsman withheld this information under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ombudsman was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 44(1)(a). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50505196
Bailii
Northern Ireland

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528721