Tag: Information

Department for Transport (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Mar 2013

The complainant requested copies of correspondence and documents concerning the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road that were exchanged between the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Treasury prior to and following the announcement of the decision on Budget day to fund the road. The Commissioner’s decision is that most of the redacted information was incorrectly withheld under regulation 12(4)(e) as the public interest favoured disclosing the information. In this respect the DfT did not deal with the request in accordance with the EIR. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the public interest did favour maintaining the exception in regulation 12(4)(e) in relation to the information specified in the confidential annex to this decision notice. In this respect the DfT was correct to refuse to provide the information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2013] UKICO FER0464382
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528057

Cabinet Office (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Mar 2013

The complainant has requested information about Smart Meters. The public authority stated that, at the time of the request, it held no information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority did hold a report which falls within the scope of the request. He therefore requires it to reconsider the request to include this report and issue a fresh response in accordance with the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50465636
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528038

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Mar 2013

The complainant made a number of requests, on two separate dates, to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) relating to an existing dispute with the department. Defra has refused these requests under section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA. The Commissioner considers that Defra was correct to rely on section 14(1) and does not therefore require Defra to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50465825
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528056

Department for Business Innovation and Skills (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Mar 2013

The complainant has requested information connected to a Select Committee report on Pub Companies. The public authority has provided some information but withheld the remainder citing the exemptions at sections 29, 35(1), 40(2), 41, 42 and 43(2) of the FOIA; the complainant did not contest the citing of section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that, except for document 175, sections 35, 42 and 43(3) are all engaged and the public interest in maintaining these exemptions is upheld. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take disclose the document numbered 175.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 29 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50464968
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528048

Department for Communities and Local Government (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Mar 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint made in 2012 by Jack Dromey MP to Andrew Dilnot, Chair of the UK Statistics Authority. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) refused the request under the exemption for information accessible via other means, the exemption for ministerial communications, the exemption for information regarding the formulation and development of government policy and a number of subsections of the exemption for prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation DCLG withdrew its reliance all the exemptions except for that relating to the formulation and development of government policy. It also confirmed that some of the information was being withheld under the exemption for personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCLG has not demonstrated that the exemption for information relating to the formulation and development of government policy is engaged. In relation to the personal data of junior officers contained within the requested information, the Commissioner finds that DCLG has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose all the requested information, except for the personal data of junior officers.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50466182
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528049

Brighton and Hove City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Mar 2013

The complainant requested legal advice obtained by Brighton and Hove City Council (the council). The council withheld the information on the basis that it was covered by legal professional privilege and was therefore either exempt under section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA) or excepted under regulation 12(5)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld the information using regulation 12(5)(b). 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 FS50465963
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528033

Architect Registration Board (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Mar 2013

The complainant has requested information concerning his complaint about an architect to the Architect’s Registration Board (‘ARB’) ARB’s Investigations Committee (the IC) had initially taken the view that the case should proceed to a hearing but, following legal advice, the decision was reviewed and the IC decided there was no case to answer. The request was submitted before this review took place. The complainant asked for information concerning the review process, his case file, specific pieces of correspondence (including legal advice received) and data concerning the decisions of the IC and Third Party Reviews over the previous five years. ARB provided some information and applied section 42(1) to the information it considers to be legally privileged. It also explained which information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that ARB is correct to apply section 42(1) to the legal advice it received. He is satisfied that ARB does not hold the further information outlined by the complainant and that it correctly handled the request in accordance with the FOIA. He does not require any further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50463513
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528025

Amber Valley Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Mar 2013

The complainant requested 4 reports and confidential background papers regarding the Ripley Gateway Development. The council claimed that the information is exempt under Regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings), 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) and 12(5)(f) (voluntary supply). On review it provided the majority of the information to the complainant however it continued to redact figures and a small number of paragraphs from the information it disclosed. It also applied Regulation 13 (personal data of a third party). The Commissioner’s decision is that Amber Valley Borough Council was correct to apply the exception in 12(4)(e) to some information and 12(5)(e) to the remaining information. As such he has not considered the application the other exceptions claimed. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50455181
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.528024

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Feb 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information held by the Department of Health relating to an Independent Inquiry conducted by University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust. The DoH applied section 12 of the FOIA and said that it would exceed the appropriate cost limit to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH has correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50451254
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527955

Westminster City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Jan 2013

The complainant has requested various pieces of financial information concerning Westminster City Council’s (‘the council’s) budgets for 2011/12 and 2012/13. The council refused the requests under section 14 of the Act, arguing them both to be vexatious. In addition, the complainant raised concerns that the information should have been routinely published under the council’s publication scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has met its obligations under section 19 of the Act, but has incorrectly deemed the request vexatious under section 14. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to the request which complies with the requirements of section 1(1) of the Act or issue a valid refusal notice complying with section 17(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 19 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50454133
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527907

BBC (Decision Notice) FS50466519: ICO 4 Feb 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to a particular use of language by the BBC and any complaints generated from this. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held, would be 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 FS50466519
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527914

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jan 2013

ICO The complainant requested details of meetings and correspondence between the Department of Health (DH) and Diageo or its PR company. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is not held by the public authority. No further steps are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50447691
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527809

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Jan 2013

ICO The complainant has requested from the Department of Health (DoH) copies of papers put before the NHS Operations Executive. The Commissioner considers that disclosure of the requested information engages section 36(2)(b) but that, in all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exemption is outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. He finds that section 36(2)(c) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the DoH to disclose NHS OE 01.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50432150
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527808

Wolverhampton City Council (Enforcement Notice): ICO 29 May 2014

ICO The ICO has issued an enforcement notice against Wolverhampton City Council, following an investigation into a data breach at the council that occurred in January 2012. The breach was caused when a social worker, who had not received data protection training, sent out a report to a former service user detailing their time in care. However, the social worker failed to remove highly sensitive information about the recipient’s sister that should not have been included.

[2014] UKICO 2014-28
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527776

City of York Council (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jan 2013

The complainant requested information from the City of York Council (‘the council’) relating to staff working at primary schools. The council provided the information, with the names of the schools redacted. The complainant said that she wanted the council to identify three schools in particular. The council refused to disclose that information using section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’), the exemption relating to third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld the information using 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 FS50459047
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527796

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 12 May 2014

ICO The complainant has requested East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s (‘the Council’) internal audit reports on its Youth Service. The Council relied on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s reliance on section 36(2)(b)(ii) was correct. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps following his decision. Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50509943
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527756

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50525124: ICO 12 May 2014

ICO The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) regarding the Service Redress of Complaint procedure. The MOD explained that it did not hold any requested information. The complainant contacted the Commissioner as he disputed this response. The Commissioner has concluded that requested information, if held, would constitute the complainant’s own personal data. Therefore the MOD does not have to respond to the request under FOIA by virtue of section 40(5)(a) of FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50525124
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527765

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50529055: ICO 8 May 2014

ICO The complainant requested information about the number of small claims processed in Lincoln County Court since 2010. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed that it holds the information but refused to provide it citing section 12 of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner considers that section 12 of the FOIA was applied correctly in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50529055
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527766

Ministry of Defence (Decision Notice) FS50524291: ICO 12 May 2014

ICO The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) regarding the Service Redress of Complaint procedure. The MOD explained that it did not hold any requested information. The complainant contacted the Commissioner as he disputed this response. The Commissioner has concluded that requested information, if held, would constitute the complainant’s own personal data. Therefore the MOD does not have to respond to the request under FOIA by virtue of section 40(5)(a) of FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50524291
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527764

City of York Council (Decision Notice): ICO 8 May 2014

ICO The complainant has requested East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s (‘the Council’) internal audit reports on its Youth Service. The Council relied on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s reliance on section 36(2)(b)(ii) was correct. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps following his decision.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50520350
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527752

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50525192: ICO 24 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant requested information relating to inappropriate behaviour by staff working in a women’s prison. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to disclose the requested information citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption was correctly applied to some of the withheld information but that the remaining withheld information is not ‘personal data’. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the aggregate information it confirmed it holds relating to the number of prison officers suspended, dismissed or convicted as a result of sexually inappropriate behaviour with women prisons in the past five years.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50525192
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527710

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the structure, job descriptions and contact details for part of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA. 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 14 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50526132
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527721

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant has requested information on complaints made to the council about its use of non-adhesive car parking tickets as compared to councils who use adhesive types. The council provided some information however the complainant wished to receive further information which he had asked for. The council argued that the information was not held for the purpose of the Act as it would require a degree of professional judgement to understand and extract the relevant information from the records that it holds. It also argued that extracting the information would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12 of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does hold the information and that it was not correct to say that the information was not held for the purposes of section 1 of the Act. He has however decided that the council was correct to apply section 12 to the information. The Commissioner has also decided that the council complied with the requirements of section 10 of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50514881
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527728

Northern Ireland Tourist Board (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant has requested information from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) regarding funding policy in relation to bi-lingual tourist signs in Northern Ireland. The NITB disclosed most of the requested information, however it withheld some information, citing the exemptions under sections 36 and 42(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the exemptions have been correctly applied, and therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50509681
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527717

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice)FS50530246: ICO 16 Apr 2014

The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to members of the Residential Property Tribunal/Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. The MoJ provided some information within the scope of the request, but denied holding the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the remaining requested information is not held and therefore he requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50530246
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527712

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50530136: ICO 22 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant has requested information about surveillance in prisons. The public authority provided some information but withheld the remainder under sections 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime) and (f) (prejudice to the maintenance of security and good order in prisons) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that the exemptions are not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50530136
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527711

Norwich City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant has requested information contained in a file, referenced 04/00453/F, which concerns an application for planning permission granted on 21 August 2007. The Commissioner’s decision is that Norwich City Council has contravened regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR for failing to make the requested information available to the complainant within the twenty day compliance period. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action in this matter at the present time.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50494443
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527719

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the process involved in determining whether previous correspondence should be dealt with as a request under the FOIA or as a pre action correspondence to a claim. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) correctly relied on section 42 not to communicate the requested information to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50523252
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527725

Oxfordshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant requested information about data protection training relating to five individuals from Oxfordshire County Council (the Council). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided the information requested. The Commissioner notes however that the information was provided outside the statutory timeframe and as such the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50520034
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527720

Shropshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant has requested various information from Shropshire Council, including information relating to the highest paid head teacher in Shropshire Schools. The Commissioner’s decision is that Shropshire Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by falling to disclose the requested information within the statutory time limit of 20 working days. He does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50518110
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527730

Police Service of Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant requested information as to whether a particular police investigation was taking place. The Police Service of Northern Ireland refused to confirm or deny whether this information was held, citing section 30(3) (information held for the purposes of an investigation) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption was engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exclusion from the duty to confirm or deny outweighed the public interest in disclosing whether PSNI holds the information. The Commissioner therefore finds that PSNI had acted correctly in refusing to confirm or deny whether it held the information. In responding to the request outside the statutory 20 working days limit, PSNI breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require PSNI to take any remedial steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50529928
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527723

Ministry of Defence (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant has requested information about a Powerpoint slide presentation and accompanying briefing notes used at a meeting of the Army Justice Board. By the date of this notice the Ministry of Defence (MOD) had yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD breached section 10 of the FOIA in that it has failed to provide a response to the request. The Commissioner requires the MOD to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50530155
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527708

HM Revenue and Customs (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant has requested information regarding a trust and the people responsible for running it. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) refused to either confirm or deny if the information was held on the basis of section 44(2) of the FOIA, by virtue of section 18(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has correctly applied section 44(2) to neither confirm nor deny if the requested information is held. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50525914
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527696

Metropolitan Police Service (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant requested information from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) relating to a complaint he had made. The MPS refused to either confirm or deny holding information within the scope of the requests citing section 40(5) of FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was correct to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the requests. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50528396
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527706

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice) FS50518825: ICO 24 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant has requested information about the prison sentences of five named individuals. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information in question is sensitive personal data and the Ministry of Justice has applied section 40(2)(personal information) appropriately. The Commissioner does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50518825
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527709

Kent County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the costs incurred by Kent County Council (KCC) during an investigation into a complaint. The Commissioner’s decision is that KCC has complied with its duties under section 1 of the FOIA in so far as it has confirmed that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50525719
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527701

Lancashire Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Apr 2014

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the revocation of firearms licences. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire Constabulary has disclosed all of the information held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50519850
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.527702