Tag: Information

Hutcheon and City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 26 Feb 2014

SIC On 21 May 2013, Mr Paul Hutcheon asked the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for information about scaffolding jobs given to a named company. The Council disclosed some information and withheld the remainder. Mr Hutcheon remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Council disclosed the remaining information.
The Commissioner found that, in dealing with Mr Hutcheon’s request, the Council had incorrectly withheld information which should have been provided to him under section 1(1) of FOISA.

[2014] ScotIC 042 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522732

Transport for London (Other): ICO 4 Jun 2018

The complainant requested information on the Transport for London’s (TfL) decision on whether to grant Uber London Limited (ULL) an operator’s licence. TfL refused the request on the basis of the section 31 exemption for law enforcement. During the investigation TfL disclosed the requested information but the complainant wished the Commissioner to decide if TfL was correct to apply section 31 at the time of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has demonstrated that section 31(1)(c),prejudice to the administration of justice, is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Complaint not upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld

[2018] UKICO fs50717678
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.621285

Transport for London (Other): ICO 25 May 2018

The complainant has requested information in relation to risk assessments conducted by different bus operators under the jurisdiction of Transport for London (TfL) for a specified period of time. TfL provided some information to the complainant, but stated that the remainder was not held. The Commissioner’s view is that the complainant’s request was not clear, therefore TfL was under an obligation under section 16(1) of the FOIA to contact the complainant and seek clarification of the request. In failing to do so, TfL breached section 16(1) of the FOIA. It is now required to remedy this breach by contacting the complainant and seeking clarification about his request. TfL also breached section 10(1) of the FOIA due to the time it took to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Write to the complainant seeking clarification of his request for ‘a summary list for each’ .The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 16: Complaint upheld

[2018] UKICO fs50704775
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.617838

Transport for London (Education (Other)): ICO 28 Sep 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to suspension of Taxi and Private Hire Drivers licences. Transport for London (TfL) has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that TfL breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2017] UKICO FS50694750
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.602237

Transport for London (Other): ICO 6 Feb 2018

The complainant made an information request to Transport for London (TfL) for details of the Transforming Fiveways, Croydon Highway Improvement Scheme. TfL acknowledged the request but failed to provide a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

[2018] UKICO fs50717127
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.617541

Transport for London (Other): ICO 13 Mar 2018

The complainant has requested information about The London Highways Alliance Contract (LoHAC). Specifically, he requested information such as the schedule of rates, lump sum arrangements and percentage adjustments (uplifts) for the four regions. TfL disclosed some information but withheld the remainder, citing section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL is correct to rely on section 43 of the FOIA for the non-disclosure of the remaining withheld information. However, she has noted that TfL failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days (and in fact took 12 months to respond to the first request) of receipt. The Commissioner has therefore found TfL in breach of section 10 of the FOIA in this case. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 43: Complaint not upheld

[2018] UKICO fs50693918
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.617683

Southern Water (Private Companies): ICO 13 Feb 2017

The complainant has requested the location of all wastewater treatment works (WTW’s) in Southern Water’s area, including addresses and grid references. Southern Water provided a list of names of WTW’s and their postal towns but withheld the more specific location information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(a). Later in the investigation, Southern Water also sought to apply regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the regulation 12(5)(a) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. No steps are required of Southern Water.
EIR 12(5)(a): Not upheld

[2017] UKICO FER0631104
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.579897

Niebel v Information Commissioner: FTTGRC 14 Oct 2013

The claimant appealed against a notice requiring him to pay a fine of 300,000 pounds under a penalty notice after his company had been involved in sending unwanted text messages on an industrial scale. There were hundreds of thousands of them sent from hundreds of unregistered sim cards seeking out potential claims for mis-selling of PPI loans or for accidents.
Held: The notice was quashed. The effect of the contravention was likely to be widespread irritation but not widespread distress. Given the scale of the contravention, there was the possibility of some distress in very unusual circumstances but no logical likelihood of substantial distress as a result of the contravention. The contravention was not of a kind likely to cause substantial distress.

Warren NJ P
[2013] UKFTT EA – 2012 – 0260 (GRC
Bailii
Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Niebel v Information Commissioner 2012 – 0260 (GRC) FTTGRC 14-Oct-2013
Decision On Further Preliminary Issue : Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.517973