The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint he had submitted to West Yorkshire Police (‘WYP’). WYP would neither confirm nor deny holding the information, citing section 40(5)(a) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP was entitled to rely on section 40(5)(a) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 40: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50669018
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.593831

The complainant has requested information about the number of ‘informal’ staff complaints/grievances raised in a specific department from West Yorkshire Police (‘WYP’). WYP provided some information but advised that to provide the remainder would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA; however, she finds a breach of section 10(1) (time for compliance) as well as a breach of section 16(1) in that it failed to provide adequate advice and assistance. No steps are required.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 16: Upheld FOI 12: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50667364
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.593910

The complainant asked West Yorkshire Police to say if, during September 2016, they employed a named person. West Yorkshire Police relied on the section 40(5) FOIA (personal information) exemption to neither confirm nor deny employing the named person. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Police had applied the section 40(5) FOIA exemption correctly. The Commissioner does not require West Yorkshire Police to take any steps to comply with the legislation. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 40: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50665576
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.593830

The complainant has requested information relating to speeding cameras on the M62 from West Yorkshire Police (‘WYP’). WYP provided some of the information but refused the remainder citing sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 31(1)(a) and (b) are properly engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
FOI 31: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50653192
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.583899

ICO The complainant requested information relating to an application for licences to expand two container ship berths at the Port of Southampton. The request focused on correspondence between the public authority, Associated British Ports and the Department for Transport. The public authority initially refused to disclose this information under regulations 12(5)(d) and 12(5)(e). During the investigation the public authority disclosed most of the previously withheld information, although it continued to withhold some information under regulations 12(3) and 13. In addition to this, the complainant stated that she believed that further information was held. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that no further information was held. In addition to this, he also found that the public authority was correct to rely upon regulations 12(3) and 13 to withhold the outstanding information. Finally, the Commissioner considered that the public authority did not meet the requirements of regulations 5(1), 5(2), 14(1) and 14(3)(a).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld
[2011] UKICO FER0325925
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.530667

ICO The complainant has requested information about allotment sites including what sites had been considered. Initially the Council refused to provide the information without citing a valid reason under the EIR and then said that it required the complainant to pay of fee of Aandpound;125 for the provision of the information. Upon reviewing its decision the Council recognised that the fee it had asked for was not a reasonable fee as required by regulation 8(3) of the EIR and provided the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that because Goring Parish Council did not provide the requested information within 20 working days it breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. He also finds that the Council breached regulation 11(5)(a). He does not require the Council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld
[2012] UKICO FER0433458
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.530077

Joint Data Contrlollers – each responsible

Personal Data – Protection of Natural Persons With Respect To The Processing of That Data – Deactivate A Facebook Page – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 95/46/EC – Personal data – Protection of natural persons with respect to the processing of that data – Order to deactivate a Facebook page (fan page) enabling the collection and processing of certain data of visitors to that page – Article 2(d) – Controller responsible for the processing of personal data – Article 4 – Applicable national law – Article 28 – National supervisory authorities – Powers of intervention of those authorities
K. Lenaerts, President, A. Tizzano (Rapporteur)
ECLI:EU:C:2018:388, [2018] EUECJ C-210/16, [2019] 1 WLR 119, [2018] WLR(D) 339, [2018] 3 CMLR 32
Bailii, WLRD
European

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.617001

The complainant requested information concerning the handling of correspondence by the MoJ. The MoJ responded, after a delay, to some of the points in the complainant’s correspondence and refused them on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. It did not respond to the remainder of the points in the complainant’s correspondence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ cited section 12(1) correctly and so was not obliged to comply with those parts of the complainant’s request. However, she also finds that the MoJ breached section 17(5) of the FOIA in failing to respond within 20 working days with the section 12(1) refusal notice, and sections 1 and 10 in not responding to some other parts of the complainant’s correspondence that the Commissioner believes were valid requests for recorded information. The MoJ is now required to respond to those requests.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld
[2016] UKICO FS50625071
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 October 2021; Ref: scu.569118

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to Lowell Goddard’s expenses and the 2016/2017 budget for the Goddard enquiry. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office did not deal with the request for information in accordance with section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) in the following way in that it failed to provide a response to the request within that statutory time frame of 20 working days from receipt. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to issue a response under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld
[2016] UKICO FS50630655
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 October 2021; Ref: scu.569111

The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for all information held on the Slack channel ukgovernmentdigital.slack.com. The Cabinet Office initially refused the request on the basis that it did not hold the requested information for the purposes of FOIA. However, it amended its position and then sought to refuse the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) because of the burden involved in complying with the request. The Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office can rely on section 14(1) as a basis to refuse to comply with the request.
FOI 14: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50667128
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.593825

The complainant has requested copies of all correspondence in any direction between Government Ministers, civil servants and the Met Office on the subject of a named statutory instrument, a Met Office Report and its initial feasibility study. The Cabinet Office relies on section 12 not to provide the complainant with the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cabinet Office has failed to persuade her that the said exemption is engaged.
FOI 12: Upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50645814
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.593824

ICO The complainant requested information about an investigation into a named individual as a result of a complaint he submitted to Dyfed Powys Police. Dyfed Powys Police refused to either confirm or deny whether it held any relevant information citing section 30(3) and section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Dyfed Powys Police was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny under section 30(3). The Commissioner does not require Dyfed Powys Police to take any steps in relation to the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld
[2013] UKICO FS50481076
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 30 August 2021; Ref: scu.528345

The complainant requested information relating to three land parcels from the public authority. The Commissioner has determined that the requested information constitutes environmental information. Therefore the requests should have been processed in accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). The public authority did not consider the request under the EIR. It also initially refused to provide some of the requested information on the basis that it was personal data. When refusing access to the material the public authority did not issue a refusal notice which met with the requirements of Regulation 14. However following an internal review the public authority supplied the complainant with the information requested. The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information has now been supplied to the complainant and therefore he has not specified any steps in this regard. The complainant did not consider the information supplied to him following the internal review was that which he had requested. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the public authority identified the areas that were actually of interest to the complainant. It then supplied further material to the complainant. The Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority has complied with the complainant’s clarified request. In its initial refusal the public authority also explained that information on land parcel TA0436 9589 was not held. The Refusal Notice did not meet the requirements of Regulation 14. The complainant disputed the public authority’s assertion because he considered that it was under a legal obligation to map the land in question. The Commissioner has investigated the complainant’s assertion that further information is held regarding land parcel TA0436 9589. He is satisfied that the public authority does not hold any further information relevant to the request. He has not ordered any steps in relation to this part of the request. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
EIR 14: Upheld
[2007] UKICO FS50104506
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.532817

The complainant requested information relating to a flight chartered for the purpose of deporting failed asylum seekers. The public authority refused the request, citing the exemptions provided by sections 31(1)(e) (prejudice to the operation of the immigration controls) and 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the public authority correctly withheld the information in connection with which it cited section 43(2). However, the Commissioner also finds that the public authority applied the exemption provided by section 31(1)(e) incorrectly and breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) by failing to disclose the information in relation to which this exemption was cited. The public authority is now required to disclose this information. The public authority also failed to comply with the requirement of section 17(1) in not responding to the request within twenty working days of receipt.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld
[2010] UKICO FS50286261
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.531780

Complaint against Melness and Tongue Community Development Trust : Partially upheld
[2017] ScotIC 187 – 2017
Bailii
Scotland

Updated: 17 August 2021; Ref: scu.616215

ICO The complainant requested information about the councils stated policy of random identity checks for those making freedom of information requests to it. In response the council pointed to the notification on its website and stated that that was all of the information it held on this policy. After a request for review the council again stood by its position that that was the only information held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bristol City Council has responded to the complainant’s request by providing him with a link to the information. He has also decided that on a balance of probabilities no further information is held by the council falling within the scope of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld
[2012] UKICO FS50430654
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.529448

ICO The complainants made a request to the London Borough of Havering (‘LBH’) for information about a Decent Homes bid made to improve sound installation at their property (and other similar properties), specifically for the monies awarded and how this had been spent. LBH advised that it does not hold the requested information. The Information Commissioner has investigated the complaint and concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that LBH does not hold the requested information. He therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Not upheld
[2012] UKICO FER0415154
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.529487

ICO The complainant requested details about the ‘losses statement’ in the public authority’s accounts for 2009/10. He was provided with some information but the remainder was withheld using the exemptions at sections 40(2) and 43(2) of the FOIA. During the Information Commissioner’s investigation some further information was also provided. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that part of the information is exempt under sections 43(2) and 40(2), but some should be disclosed. The Information Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the names and business addresses of the untraceable and bankrupt sole practitioners.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Partly Upheld
[2012] UKICO FS50427663
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.529495

ICO The complainant requested information concerning both his neighbours’ properties with regards to building work carried out to construct garden decking and a conservatory. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Bradford Metropolitan District Council (BMDC) does not hold some of the requested information and was correct to withhold the remainder as personal data. The Commissioner does not require BMDC to take any further remedial steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld
[2012] UKICO FER0420549
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.529447

The complainant alleged that the charges for providing copies of a planning application were excessive. The Commissioner notes recent reductions in these charges and accepts that the Council has satisfied itself that its charges do not exceed a reasonable amount in accordance with Part 2, paragraph 8(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The complainant appealed to the Information Tribunal who upheld the appeal and issued a substitute notice, this is available at www.informationtribunal.gov.uk.
EIR 8: Not upheld
[2005] UKICO FER0061168
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.569136

The complainant has requested information relating to a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that Medway Council has failed to demonstrate that the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) where disclosure would have an adverse effect upon the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest is engaged. She has also decided that the council does not hold any further information relevant to the requests in this case. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information requested at part 1.b.i. of the request to ensure compliance with the legislation.
EIR 12(5)(e): Upheld EIR 5(1): Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FER0655515
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.593785

The complainant made a request to Coventry City Council (the Council) for information on a proposed new road. The Council refused to provide the requested information and cited regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) and, in the specific circumstance of this case, the public interest lies in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner finds that the Council did not provide adequate advice and assistance as required under regulation 9 of the EIR. She requires the Council to provide reasonable advice and assistance to aid the complainant in refining his request. 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 Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld EIR 5(2): Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FER0638124
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.602262

The complainant has requested information on the cost of renting property from the council prior to a transfer of housing stock to a housing association by the council in 2000. The council said that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the council was correct to say that it does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50692411
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.617452

The complainant has requested information from Medway Council about a specific planning reference. The Council disclosed information in response. The complainant contested that further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all relevant held information. However, by providing an internal review outside of 40 working days, the Council failed to comply with the requirement of regulation 11(4) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 5(1): Not upheld EIR 11(4): Upheld
[2017] UKICO FER0655721
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.583772

Medway Council has been issued with an enforcement notice by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
[2017] UKICO 2017-70
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.593784

Wheelchair accessible taxis/private hire vehicles: failure to respond within statutory timescales : For applicant
[2018] ScotIC 021 – 2018
Bailii
Scotland

Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.616246

The complainant has requested notes and minutes regarding a safeguarding investigation carried out by the council after the death of her father in care. The council responded by applying the exemption in section 41(1) of the Act (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply the exemption in section 41(1) to the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 41: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50658109
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.593931

The complainant has requested information relating to pollution measurements, accident and collisions and works carried out on a specified section of the A2. Medway Council refused to comply with some parts of the complainant’s request but refused to comply with other parts of the request in reliance on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, where the Council advised the complainant that his request was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that Medway Council correctly applied Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to part 4 of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner determined that the Council is entitled to aggregate all of the parts of the complainant’s request for the purpose of its application of Regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner has also decided that the Council breached Regulation 9 of the EIR by failed to provide advice and assistance to the complainant in respect of his request, and also that it breached Regulation 5(2) by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the twenty day compliance period.
EIR 9: Complaint upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld
[2018] UKICO fer0706279
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.621257

The complainant has requested information about a proposed traffic regulation order. The Commissioner’s decision is that Medway Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR for manifestly unreasonable requests. The Commissioner does not require Medway Council to take any steps.
EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fer0674844
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.617622

Handling of FOI request: failure to respond within statutory timescales : For applicant
[2018] ScotIC 065 – 2018
Bailii
Scotland

Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.616292

IT Sections 33(1)(b) and (2) and 35(a)(iii) Freedom of Information Act 2000 – meaning of prejudice in section 33 – balance of public interest in relation to reports regarding project management controls maintained by Appellant called Gateway Reports completed in 2003 and 2004 regarding identity cards – OGC’s working assumptions – section 40 of Freedom of Information Act 2000 – redaction.
[2009] UKIT EA – 2006 – 0068
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.373736

The claimant had sought his personal data as to a communication between the defendant and the coroner holding the inquest into the claimant’s wife’s death.
Mr Justice Jeremy Baker
[2014] EWHC 1847 (QB)
Bailii
Data Protection Act 1998, Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.526436

[2017] ScotIC 099 – 2017
Bailii
Scotland

Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.591448

The complainant requested information on the criteria used by the council for consultations. The council disclosed two documents which are associated with its membership of Enfield Partnership. The complainant considers that the council response does not fully answer his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the two documents provided to the complainant by the council provide him with a response to his request. It outlines the guidance which its officers work to on setting up and running consultation exercises, however each individual consultation will be run on an individual, bespoke basis. It therefore provides him with the criteria used by council officers when setting up consultations. The Commissioner therefore considers that the council has complied with the requirements of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld
[2013] UKICO FS50474375
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.528079

The complainant made a number of requests for information relating to the councils introduction of wheeled bins into the area. The council responded, after 20 working days. Its response sought to answer the questions of the complainant in an informal way rather than a formal response under the Regulations. The council provided some information, said that it did not hold other information and asked the complainant for clarification of other parts of his request. After the Commissioner’s intervention the council provided a formal response applying Regulation 12(4)(a) to some requests, and asking for clarification of other statements or requests made by the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has now complied with its obligations under the Regulations. He has decided however that it breached Regulation 5(2) in that it did not provide its initial response within 20 working days. It also did not initially state which exceptions which it was applying to the request when first responding to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld
[2013] UKICO FS50453520
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.528078

The complainant has requested information from the CDC Group plc relating to certain investments made by CDC. CDC refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 41 and 43 of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 41 of FOIA is engaged in relation to the entirety of the withheld information and that it was correctly applied by CDC. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld
[2013] UKICO FS50460208
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.528042

The complainant has requested information from Walberswick Parish Council (the council) relating to an email/letter sent by a named person to the council; legal advice that had been given to the council; and the advice/information it had obtained in order to charge pounds 25 per hour for the parish clerk’s time. The council relied initially on section 14 of the FOIA and then withdrew that reliance. It later stated that the requested information was either ‘not held’ or had been deleted, though some further information was eventually provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held that has not already been supplied by the council to the complainant. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld
[2013] UKICO FS50462219
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.528158

The complainant has requested information from the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) in relation to questionnaires issued to parents regarding Ofsted inspections carried out in schools. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted has breached sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA as it failed to provide the requested information or confirm or deny whether it held that information, within the 20 working day time limit as set out in section 10(1) of FOIA. As Ofsted have now provided the complainant with a response to his request which complies with the requirements of the Act he orders no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld
[2013] UKICO FS50453022
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.528136

The complainant requested a copy of and timing of the resignation letter of a former Parish Council member from Walberswick Parish Council. The council refused the request on the grounds that the complainant had made a large number of requests within the previous 60 days. It therefore aggregated the time and cost of responding to these requests together and applied section 12 of the Act (cost of responding to the request exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that Walberswick Parish Council is not correct to apply section 12 to the request. In order for requests to be aggregated they must relate ‘to any extent, to the same or similar information’. Having considered the requests relied upon by the council in order to apply the exemption, the Commissioner is not satisfied that they are for the same, or similar information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response without relying upon Section 12.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld
[2013] UKICO FS50453488
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.528156

The complainant requested information from Walberswick Parish Council (the council) related to the decision-making process that led to the issuing of exclusion notices against certain individuals, including the complainant, by the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held that has not already been supplied by the council to the complainant. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld
[2013] UKICO FS50423845
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.528154

The complainant requested the Council to release the addresses of properties where the Council Tax payer had ‘gone away’ owing Council Tax in excess of pounds 1000 for the accounts period 2008/2009. The Council refused to disclose this information citing section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and concluded that disclosure of the requested information would breach the Data Protection Act and therefore that the Council was correct to rely on section 40(2) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld
[2010] UKICO FS50280148
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 09 July 2021; Ref: scu.531534

The complainant requested advice provided to the senior officers of Tandridge District Council by the chief executive of another nearby local authority, together with supporting documentation. Tandridge District Council refused the request relying on the section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 42 (legal professional privilege) FOIA exemptions. During the Commissioner’s investigation, Tandridge District Council disclosed some of the requested information but continued to withhold part of it. The Commissioner was satisfied that section 36(2) FOIA is engaged in respect of all of the information still being withheld and that the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner did not require Tandridge District Council to take any action.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50709440
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.617835

ICO The complainant requested information about a named district judge. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing sections 32(3), court records, 40(5), personal information and 44(2), prohibitions on disclosure of FOIA in respect of parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the request. The MOJ initially said it did not hold any information in respect of part 5, but changed its position during the investigation and instead relied on section 12(1), the cost exclusion. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has properly relied on sections 40(5) and 12(1) to refuse this request. As he has found sections 40(5) and 12(1) to be engaged, he has not considered the MOJ’s reliance on the other exemptions. He does not require the MOJ to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50597828
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559058

ICO The complainant submitted two requests for information relating to a tender bid process he had been part of in 2010 for legal aid work. The MOJ responded to both requests and cited section 14(1), vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has properly applied section 14(1) to both requests and he therefore does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 14: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50595496
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559057

ICO (Local Government (City Council)) The complainant has requested information regarding services provided to certain streets in Leeds. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council has correctly applied the exception for manifestly unreasonable requests at Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FER0598659
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559052

ICO The complainant has requested details relating to the decision to close a certain primary care support service and the subsequent transfer of medical records. NHS England did not respond to the request within the twenty working days prescribed in section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has breached section 10 of the FOIA. However, as ultimately NHS England did provide a response, it is not required to take any further action in respect of this complaint.
FOI 10: Upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50603875
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559061

The complainant requested the transcript of an exit interview carried out with a named former employee of Portsmouth City Council (the Council). The Council refused this request under the exemption provided by section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council cited section 40(2) correctly and so it was not obliged to disclose the requested information.
FOI 40: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50592338
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559021

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to reporting of the America’s Cup. The BBC explained that 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 within the scope of FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
References: [2015] UKICO FS50591602
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559026

(Undertakings, Health) A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Trust has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed May 2015.
References: [2016] UKICO 2016-46
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the Queen’s Christmas Broadcasts (also known as the Queen’s Christmas Speech). The Cabinet Office denied holding any relevant information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office sought to refuse the request under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) because compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Cabinet Office later withdrew this argument and reverted to its original position that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Cabinet Office is unlikely to hold any requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 1: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50565706
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559017

ICO The complainant has requested information held by the Cabinet Office relating to the removal/consideration of removal of the ‘Check Off’ facility within the Home Office. The Cabinet Office withheld all the information under sections 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) and (b) (Ministerial communications) of FOIA. In addition, the Cabinet Office withheld some of the information under section 42(1)(legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on sections 35(1)(a) and (b) to withhold all the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 35: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50570303
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559028

ICO The complainant requested information from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) relating to two planning applications. The Council considered that Regulations 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and (f) (the interests of the person who provided the information) apply to some of the withheld information and that Regulations 12(4)(d) (unfinished documents) and (e) (internal communications) apply to all the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that those Regulations are, for the most part, not engaged. He finds that while Regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged in respect of some of the information, the public interest favours disclosure of some of that information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant those aspects of the withheld information identified in the annex to this decision notice. 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 Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 12(4)(d): Upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Partly upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Upheld EIR 12(5)(f): Upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FER0584347
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559022

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information relating to flights arriving into the British Indian Overseas Territory in March 2004. The FCO refused to disclose the information relying on section 27(1)(a) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO is entitled to rely on this exemption to withhold the requested information and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
FOI 27: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50585471
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.559018

The complainant has requested to know the total severance payments made to two named individuals. Hastings borough Council (the council) initially refused the request under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. During the Commissioner’s investigations it amended its response to refuse the request under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA – to neither confirm nor deny whether any severance payments were made. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA is engaged to this request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld
References: [2018] UKICO fs50707029
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.621324

References: [2007] ScotIC 018 – 2007
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 26 December 2018
Ref: 434277

References: [2017] UKICO FS50667804
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 31-Jan-18
Ref: 602210

References: [2017] UKICO FS50661241
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 30-Sep-17
Ref: 593734

References: [2017] UKICO FS50662965
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 27-Sep-17
Ref: 593847

References: [2017] UKICO FS50652467
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 26-Sep-17
Ref: 593680

References: [2013] UKICO FS50507134
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 30-Jul-17
Ref: 528905

References: [2017] ScotIC 057 – 2017
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 19-Jul-17
Ref: 588928

References: [2012] ScotIC 124_2012)
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 13-Apr-17
Ref: 466852

References: [2013] UKICO FS50444874
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 08-Apr-17
Ref: 527790

References: [2017] UKICO FS50660246
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 04-Apr-17
Ref: 579844

References: [2016] UKICO FS50646085
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 02-Apr-17
Ref: 579723

References: [2017] UKICO FS50643992, FS506
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 01-Apr-17
Ref: 579877

References: [2016] UKICO FS50600448
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 31-Mar-17
Ref: 579729

References: [2016] UKICO FS50627200
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 19-Feb-17
Ref: 572894

References: [2016] UKICO FS50641049
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 19-Feb-17
Ref: 573008

References: [2016] UKICO FS50649254
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 08-Feb-17
Ref: 572977

References: [2016] UKICO FS50651253
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 03-Feb-17
Ref: 572989

References: [2016] UKICO FS50627501
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 02-Feb-17
Ref: 572838

References: [2016] UKICO FS50615851
Links: Bailii
Ratio: ICO The complainant requested information relating to a named individual who was part of an aircrew that deserted from the German air force and flew to an RAF base in May 1943. The Home Office stated that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office stated correctly and in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA that it did not hold the requested information and so he does not require it to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 09-Nov-16
Ref: 568255

References: [2012] UKICO FS50408483
Links: Bailii
Ratio: ICO The complainant requested information, in relation to the Land Registry’s proposed entry into the provision of the land charges information sector. The Land Registry informed the complainant that it held the requested information but it was exempt from disclosure by virtue of sections 35(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Land Registry confirmed that it held additional requested information and that it was relying solely on section 35(1)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information does engage section 35(1)(a) and the public interest test favours the maintenance of the exemption for the majority of it. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the withheld information that constitutes the fees charged by various local authorities for local land charge searches and the information the Land Registry categorises as being in the public domain.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Partly Upheld
Jurisdiction: EW

Last Update: 17-Oct-16
Ref: 529494

References: [2016] UKICO FS50605711
Links: Bailii
Ratio:

Last Update: 24-Sep-16
Ref: 569106

References: [2016] UKICO FS50603751
Links: Bailii
Ratio:

Last Update: 04-Sep-16
Ref: 568417

References: [2016] UKICO FS50604561
Links: Bailii
Ratio:

Last Update: 03-Sep-16
Ref: 568301

References: [2016] UKICO FS50604954
Links: Bailii
Ratio:

Last Update: 01-Sep-16
Ref: 568243

References: [2016] UKICO FS50608417
Links: Bailii
Ratio:

Last Update: 31-Aug-16
Ref: 568307

References: [2011] UKICO FS50373233
Links: Bailii
Ratio: ICO The complainant requested the settled legal advice regarding the Health and Safety (Offences) Bill 2008 from the Department for Work and Pensions (the ‘DWP). The complainant also asked the DWP to provide the other opinions, information or documents referred to at paragraph 16 of an Information Tribunal Decision EA/2010/0044. Additionally he requested all available information relating to research carried out, commissioned, or received by the Government as to the anticipated factual impact of the proposed measure. The requested information was refused by the DWP on the grounds of the exemption provided by section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (the ‘Act’), relating to legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information attracts legal professional privilege and in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0206 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Last Update: 28-Jul-16
Ref: 530725