Citations:

[2008] UKIT EA – 2006 – 0010

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266736

Information Regarding a Named Property

Citations:

[2017] ScotIC 046 – 2017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.581994

The complainant asked Walberswick Parish Council (the council) to provide information on various matters including the council’s code of conduct, correspondence submitted to the council, the council’s standing orders, and advice provided to the council. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not comply with sections 1, 10 and 17 of the FOIA when responding to the complainant’s request. This is because it did not provide the requested information, or a valid refusal notice, within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) notes that the council has now provided a new response to the complainant’s request. He does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50379341

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.531122

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of a specific Councillors report and other information that Walberswick Parish Council holds relating to a meeting that considered an internal review of previous information requests. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows:In relation to point e of the requested information, Walberswick Parish Council did not deal with the request in accordance with section 1(1)(a), section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) of the FOIA, in that it did not inform the complainant that the information was held, or disclose that information within the statutory time limit. In relation to points a and d, the Commissioner’s decision is that Walberswick Parish Council did not deal with the request in accordance with section 10(1) of the FOIA, in that it did not disclose the information within the statutory time limit. In relation to points b, c, and f of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Walberswick Parish Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50423033

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.529680

The complainant has requested information from Darlington Borough Council about the status of conditions attached to a planning application. The Council refused the request under regulation 6(1)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The complainant contested the Council’s application of regulation 6(1)(b), and whether any further recorded information was held by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 6(1)(b), and that no further recorded information was held. However, the Council breached the requirement of regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 5(1): Not upheld EIR 5(2): Upheld EIR 6(1)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FER0661451

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.593835

The complainant has requested information relating to the rollout of superfast Broadband (funding and decision making) in the Darlington area. Darlington Borough Council failed to respond within the statutory 20 working days prescribed by FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to communicate to the complainant all the information it held to fulfil the request within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, Darlington Borough Council breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Council has now provided all the information to the complainant, therefore the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50693729

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.602483

The complainant has requested a copy of an agreement between local authorities and Peel Group relating to Durham Tees Valley Airport Ltd. Darlington Borough Council withheld the information under the exemption for commercial interests (section 43(2) of the FOIA) and, following the Commissioner’s involvement, revised its position, withholding the information under the EIR exception for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that Darlington Borough Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14 and, failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
EIR 5(1): Upheld EIR 14(4): Upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50682871

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.602383

The complainant has requested information in relation to postal votes. Darlington Borough Council (the council) refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered it to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council are able to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50635054

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.573057

The complainant has requested pre-application advice in relation to a proposed housing development. Darlington Borough Council refused the request, withholding the information under the exception for interests of the information provider – regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Darlington Borough Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(f) to withhold the requested information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 12(5)(f): Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FER0632719

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.572853

ICO The complainant requested information about compensation payments made to organisations who comply with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Home Office stated that it does not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office does hold some relevant information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner therefore requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50469527

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.528199

ICO The complainant requested information relating to all court and tribunal cases that Cambridgeshire County Council . . had been involved in since January 2007. The council refused to comply with the request on the basis of an exclusion relating to costs under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 . . The complainant did not dispute the application of section 12(1) but he did ask the Commissioner to consider whether the council had breached its obligation under section 16(1) to provide reasonable advice and assistance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached its obligation under section 16(1) of the FOIA to offer reasonable advice and assistance. However, he does not require any steps to be taken in light of the explanation provided in this notice and the offer to search up to the appropriate limit.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50431298

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 12(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.529454

The complainant requested details of what had been done with a sum of money that his employers were obliged to pay to Sheffield City Council (the Council) in connection with a planning matter. Having stated that it held no further information falling within the scope of the request, the Council subsequently located further information, which it disclosed to the complainant. The complainant asked the Commissioner to consider whether the Council has now located all relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has now located all information falling within the scope of the request and so it is not required to take any further action in relation to this request. However, the Commissioner has also found that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR in that it failed to supply the information within 20 working days of receipt of the request and has noted that it should improve its handling of future information request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0480190

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.528607

ICO The complainant has requested that NHS London confirm the number of Serious Untoward Incidents (SUIs) of selected types which were recorded during the 2011 calendar year. In addition, he has asked NHS London to provide a description of each of the SUIs. NHS London disclosed the number of recorded incidents but considered that the descriptions were exempt information pursuant to section 41 (information provided in confidence), and in some cases section 40(2) (third party personal data), of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information can be released subject to redactions that would anonymise the information. He therefore requires NHS London to disclose the requested information with the following details redacted: times and dates, references to geographical place names, names of individuals, age of patients, and information described in Table 2 of the confidential annex. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50448878

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.530029

ICO The complainant made a request for all the information held by specific departments of the public authority that contained a reference to his companies. The public authority supplied some information; however the complainant believed that the public authority held further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has complied with section 1(1)(b) and section 12 as it acted reasonably in conducting proper searches and the cost of retrieving electronic information would exceed the appropriate limit. However, the public authority has breached section 10; time for compliance and section 1(1)(a) in relation to specific financial details. It has also misapplied section 42 (legal professional privilege) to some information.
FOI 1: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2007] UKICO FS50092946

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.532830

ICO The complainant requested information from English Heritage about what consultation had taken place regarding proposed developments in Norwich Cathedral Precinct. English Heritage refused on the grounds that there was nothing further held beyond what had already been provided to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0101 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50312558

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.530321

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of pre-application advice, and any other communications connected to it, in respect of a specific plot. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied the exception for personal data at regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner has also decided that the council breached the procedural provisions at regulation 14(2) and 14(3). However, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0486917

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.528609

ICO In this matter the complainant made a series of Freedom of Information requests of the public authority. The requests were refined and the Commissioner has made a decision about three outstanding items. The Commissioner has concluded that all of those items, in this context, constitute the complainant’s personal data and therefore they are exempt under section 40(1) and should have been considered under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. He has found a breach of section 17(1)(b) in relation to the refusal notice provided in respect of one of the requests. He has not ordered any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2009/0009 has been withdrawn.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50086918

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.532796

ICO The complainant has requested information from Suffolk County Council (the council) regarding its expenditure on augmentative and alternative communication devices (AAC devices). The council’s initial response stated that the information was not held in such a way as to provide the requested information. It also later relied on section 12 as it determined that it would exceed the cost limit to provide the information. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council was able to confirm that the requested information was not held. However, in responding outside the time for compliance, the Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to comply with section 10 of the FOIA. He also finds that the council failed to provide appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant at the time of the request, and has therefore recorded a breach of section 16. As the council has now provided a satisfactory response to the complainant’s request, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50472350

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.528614

ICO The complainant submitted a number of requests to the public authority from March 2005 to September 2005. In September 2005 the public authority refused to answer any further requests from the complainant on the basis that the requests were vexatious. During the investigation the complainant limited his complaint to requests about 9 outstanding items. The Commissioner has considered whether the University responded to 8 of those requests in accordance with Part I of the Act. The other item is dealt with in the other matters section of this decision. He has concluded that items 1 to 5, 8 and 9 are the complainant’s personal data and therefore are exempt under section 40(1) and (5). He has concluded that item 7 is not held by the University. The Commissioner has also concluded that the University breached sections 17(1)(a), (b) and (c), (5) and (7)(a) in relation to different aspects of the 8 outstanding requests. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2009/0008 has been withdrawn.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50086696

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.532797

ICO The complainant has requested copies of all written correspondence and related information between the London Borough of Barnet and North London Waste Authority (NLWA) in connection with various aspects of the Hendon Waste Transfer Station. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the EIR in that it did not apply the correct legislation when handling the request. He therefore requires NLWA either to provide the information requested in compliance with regulation 5(1) or issue a valid refusal notice that complies with regulation 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 2.1 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50392590

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.530995

Citations:

[2007] UKIT EA – 2006 – 0090

Links:

Bailii

Information

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262366

Citations:

[2007] UKIT EA – 2006 – 0011

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262325

Citations:

[2007] UKIT EA – 2006 – 0017

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262338

ECJ (Law Governing the Institutions) Access to documents Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Exceptions relating to the protection of the public interest – Partial access.

Citations:

[2007] EUECJ T-264/04

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

Jurisdiction:

European

Information

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.251890

The complainant requested a copy of legal advice the public authority obtained in relation to a complaint he made to it about an alleged breach of planning control at a residential property neighbouring his own. The public authority applied sections 31(law enforcement) and section 42 (legal professional privilege) of the Act and stated that the information was exempt from disclosure. During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority also sought to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner considers the withheld information to constitute environmental information and the relevant legislation under which the request should have been considered to be the EIR. The Commissioner considers that the withheld information is subject to legal professional privilege and that it is exempt by virtue of regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. He found procedural breaches in the way the public authority handled the request but requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0184 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50326593

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.531672

The complainant requested internal correspondence within North Somerset Council (the Council) relating to licences for outdoor eating and drinking. The Council disclosed some information but withheld the remainder and cited the following exceptions from the EIR: Regulation 12(3) (personal information), Regulation 12(5)(b) (adverse effect to the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair trial or the ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature), Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council cited regulation 12(3) correctly and regulation 12(5)(b) correctly in relation to some of the information withheld under that exception. However, in relation to the remainder of the information for which 12(5)(b) was cited, and all the information in relation to which regulation 12(4)(e) was cited, the Commissioner finds that these exceptions were cited incorrectly. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information specified in the schedule provided with this notice to the Council in relation to which regulation 12(5)(b) was cited, and all of the information in relation to which regulation 12(4)(e) was cited.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12 3 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0496878

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.528912

The complainant requested details of any criminal convictions for five specified police officers. The CPS refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information, relying on the exemption provided by section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS cited section 40(5) correctly and so it was not required to confirm or deny whether it held this information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50490440

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.528249

Citations:

[2006] UKIT EA – 2006 – 0010

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Information

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248070

Citations:

[2006] UKIT EA – 2005 – 0010

Links:

Bailii

Information

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248069

Citations:

[2007] UKIT EA – 2006 – 0013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248048

Citations:

[2006] UKIT EA – 2006 – 0008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248056

Citations:

[2006] UKIT EA – 2006 – 0014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Francome v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd CA 1984
The defendant had acquired illegal tapes of telephone conversations which it said implicated the plaintiff. He sought to restrain publication of the material pending forthcoming discliplinary charges at the Jockey Club.
Held: The court had to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248067

The complainant has made two information requests in which he seeks various information about the handling of a planning complaint and associated information requests that he has made. Leeds City Council disclosed held information in response, but under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. The complainant subsequently contested that further information was held that should be provided under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of the probabilities, the Council does not hold further information that would fall under the terms of the EIR. However, the Council breached regulation 5(1) by providing a response to the requests outside the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0695235

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.617812

The complainant has requested information about the amounts paid to the author of a report from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS initially refused to provide this information, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA, however, it was later provided to the complainant during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The MPS did confirm that the information was held, but outside of the 20 working day time limit, thereby breaching section 10(1) of the FOIA. In failing to disclose the requested information within the time limit the Commissioner finds a further breach of section 10. No steps are required.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50736525

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.621342

The complainant complained about the Council’s response to a number of requests he made regarding a planning application. He complained that he did not consider that Leeds City Council had provided all the information it held and about the fact it had applied the exemption under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to information about a particular planning officer. The Information Commissioner considered some of these requests as part of his investigation. The Commissioner noted that two of the requests were not responded to by the Council and he requires the Council to respond to these. Regarding the remaining requests, the Commissioner considers that the Council should have dealt with the requests under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Regarding the information originally withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA, the Commissioner found that this information was not actually held. Regarding the remaining requests, the Commissioner was satisfied that no information was held in relation to one of the requests and in relation to the other, he was satisfied that the information that was held had already been provided. However, he found that the Council breached regulation 5(2), 11(4), 14(2) and 14(3)(a) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50213882

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.531363

The complainant has made requests for information relating to the council’s actions as regards the care provided to his wife. The council refused to respond to the request on the basis that section 17(6) applied – that previous similar requests had been received from the complainant which the council decided were vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 17(6) to the requests. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50514055

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.527469

The complainant has made requests for information relating to the council’s actions as regards the care provided to his wife. The council refused to respond to the request on the basis that section 17(6) applied that previous similar requests had been received from the complainant which the council decided were vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 17(6) to the requests. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50519359

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.527470

The complainant requested information relating to funding provided by the council and other authorities to a Credit Union. The council confirmed that it held information but withheld it from disclosure on the basis that sections 41 (information held in confidence) and 43 (commercial sensitivity) applied. On review it confirmed that decision. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply the exemptions in section 41 and 43 to the information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50252404

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.531364

Citations:

[2006] UKIT EA – 2005 – 0001

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000 57

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240304

Report On Whistleblowing Allegation

Citations:

[2017] ScotIC 093 – 2017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.588970

ICO The complainant requested information about planning agreements which the Isle of Anglesey County Council (‘the Council’) had entered into from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2011. The Council initially stated that it did not hold the information requested, and later, in its internal review it alluded to compliance with the request exceeding the appropriate cost limit under the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council agreed that the request was for environmental information and the correct access regime was the EIR. The Council sought to rely in regulation 12(4)(b) as it considered the request to be manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is manifestly unreasonable and the Council was entitled to refuse it under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50448174

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.530019

ICO The complainant requested information about a hearing held at Stevenage Magistrates Court. The Commissioner’s decision is that HM Courts and Tribunals Service has applied section 40(2) appropriately and is also correct to state that it does not hold certain information. The Commissioner does not require HM Courts and Tribunals Service to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498942

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.528794

The complainant made a number of requests for information related to the involvement of some of the public authority’s staff in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Commissioner has found that the public authority breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a response to a request within 20 working days and breached regulation 5(2) by failing to provide a response to other requests.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FER0238017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.531568

Citations:

[2003] UKIT NSA5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229990

Citations:

[2005] UKIT NSA1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229980

The complainants requested a copy of CCTV footage relating to an alleged incident of vandalism in one of the PCT’s car parks. The trust refused access to the information under section 40 of the Act, stating that it was personal data and release would breach the data protection principles. The Commissioner then investigated the nature and purpose of the CCTV cameras involved and reviewed the CCTV footage itself. Having done this, it was decided that the images were personal data and their disclosure would breach the first data protection principle, and so the exemption applied was held to be valid. As a result the Decision Notice does not identify any steps to be taken; however, when first refusing the complainants’ request for information the PCT did not respond within 20 working days, and the Commissioner has therefore found that this breached section 10 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50066908

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.533396

The complainant requested names of probation officers involved in the care of a prisoner released on licence, and also details of any actions taken against them. While out of prison the prisoner stole a motor vehicle and a police officer was killed in the ensuing pursuit. The Home Office confirmed no action was taken against the probation officers but refused to provide their names, arguing that the information was exempt under section 40 (Personal Data) and section 36 (Prejudice to the Effective Conduct of Public Affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information was personal data and that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle. As the Commissioner decided that the information was exempt under section 40 of the FOI Act which is an absolute exemption he did not review the public interest test in respect of section 36.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50083545

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.533457

On 4th January the complainant requested a copy of the ‘Dunbar report, the findings of an inquiry conducted by Ian Dunbar into a riot which took place at HM Remand Centre Risley between 30 April and 3 May 1989. The Home Office stated that the report could not be found. Following intervention from the Commissioner, the Home Office searched further and confirmed that there was no record of the report, concluding that it was not held. On the balance of evidence, the Commissioner has accepted this conclusion. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50071802

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.533355

The complainant wrote to the Home Office on 9/3/05 to request a copy of a particular review. The Home Office sent acknowledgement letters on 23/3/05 and 16/5/05, however, they failed within the statutory 20 working day limit to; confirm or deny whether the specified information was held, communicate the specified information and/or issue a notice refusing to provide the specified information. In not correctly notifying the complainant of the need for an extension to the time limit to answer the request, the Home office is found to be in breach of section 10 and section 17. A final response to the request was made on 10/11/05, where some information was provided and other items were withheld.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50084412

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.533298

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 347 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd ChD 9-Nov-2004
The claimant doctor had sought assistance from the defendant, and having been refused it had sought disclosure of its records about him. He had been refused access under the 1998 Act, and now sought access under the Civil Procedure Rules.
See Also – Johnson v The Medical Defence Union Ltd ChD 3-Mar-2006
The claimant sought disclosure under the 1998 Act by the defendant of records held by them. The respondent said that the information they held did not amount to data under the Act.
Held: The information was contained in different formats, on . .
See Also – Johnson v The Medical Defence Union CA 28-Mar-2007
The claimant asserted that the 1998 Act created rights between the parties that are in substance though not in form of a contractual nature; and rights to compensation for infringement of those primary rights of a nature that did not previously . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226162

Adoption of Sign-Nice Guidelines

Citations:

[2017] ScotIC 091 – 2017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.588969

The complainant made a number of freedom of information requests to the Telford and Wrekin Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) for information regarding Gender Reassignment Surgery. The CCG initially said that the requested information was not held and told the complainant to redirect her request to NHS England. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it identified some further information and disclosed this to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University breached section 10 in its handling of the complainant’s request but she is satisfied that it has now disclosed all of the information it holds and so she requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50670671

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.594025

ECJ Openness – Public access to Council documents – Partial refusal of access – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Exceptions.

Citations:

T-84/03, [2004] EUECJ T-84/03, [2004] ECR II-4061

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Kennedy v The Information Commissioner and Another CA 12-May-2011
The claimant, a journalist, sought further information from the Charity Commission after the release of three investigations into the ‘Mariam Appeal’ and questions about the source and use of its funds. The Commission replied that it was exempt . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219829

The complainant requested information about Ofqual’s subject experts. Ofqual withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofqual has correctly applied this exemption and does not need to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50508627

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.527505

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the business engagements of Her Majesty’s Revenues and Customs (HMRC) board members during the three financial years ending 31 March 2011 and in the period 1 April 2011 to the present time. HMRC refused to comply with the request as it viewed the request to be vexatious. HMRC cited section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as its grounds for refusal. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA and that the request is vexatious. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps in this matter.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50458562

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.530015

The complainant made a request to the Post Office under the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015 (ROPSI) to re-use the information in its ‘branch finder’ tool. The Post Office only permitted re-use under the Non-commercial Government Licence and the complainant also complained that it had failed to make the information available in a re-usable format. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Post Office breached regulation 12(2) by placing unnecessarily restrictive conditions on re-use. The Commissioner has also found that the Post Office breached regulation 11(1) by failing to make the information available in a machine readable format; regulation 8(1) by failing to respond to the request within a reasonable time; and regulation 17(3) by failing to complete an internal review within a reasonable time.
RPSI 12(2): Upheld RPSI 11(1): Upheld RPSI 8(1): Upheld RPSI 17(3): Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50630368

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.593714

The complainant requested information about the status of a piece of land, Transport for London’s (TfL) arrangement to clean it and its relevant cleaning policies under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). TfL didn’t respond in 20 working days and then took even longer to provide all the requested information. The complainant referred the delays to the Commissioner (‘the Information Commissioner’). The Commissioner considers that part of the information was environmental information and fell to be considered under the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’). He finds TfL’s failure to provide that information in 20 working days was a breach of Regulation 5(2). For the rest of the information, the Commissioner finds that TfL breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by not providing it within 20 working days. As the information has been provided, the Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FER0419123

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.531116

The complainant has requested information concerning Departmental meetings with BP plc and invitations issued to Ministers by BP plc to attend cultural events or performances. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) provided some information within scope of the request but withheld some information from the note of a meeting on 9 June 2015 between the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries and representatives of BP plc. DCMS withheld the information under Section 35(1)(a)(formulation or development of government policy) and Section 27(1) (prejudice to international relations). Section 35(1)(d)(the operation of any Ministerial private office) and Section 40(2) were also applied to a small amount of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS was entitled to rely on Section 35(1)(a) to withhold all of the withheld information and the balance of the public interest supported maintaining the exemption.
FOI 35(1)(a): Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50636764

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.593837

The complainant has requested from the Department of Energy and Climate Change all Information Asset Register or any information which resembles an IAR, held by the offshore oil and gas environment and decommissioning unit and the licensing, exploration and development unit together with any code sheets or data dictionaries that are used in conjunction with those files. The complainant had previously made a similar request in relation to DECC as a whole. DECC confirmed that it did not hold any further information in relation to the request. The complainant was not satisfied with the response and submitted a complaint to the Commissioner. Additional enquiries were undertaken by DECC but no further information was located. The Commissioner’s decision is that further information is not held. He therefore does not require the DECC to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50505493

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.528978

ICO The complainant requested information regarding the sale of shares in Invest NI. Some information was provided, but some was withheld on the grounds that the information was exempt under sections 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 43 (prejudice to commercial interests). With respect to both exemptions the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is that the section 36 exemption is engaged but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information, that the section 43 exemption is not engaged, and that the refusal notice issued by Invest NI did not comply with the requirements of section 17. Invest NI did not, therefore, deal with the request made in accordance with Part 1 of the Act in that it has failed to comply with its obligations under section 1 as they did not fulfil the duty to confirm or deny. However, the information which was withheld was disclosed in March 2006 as part of Invest NI’s annual accounts and a copy of the information was provided to the complainant at this time, and so no further action is required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50073979

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.533507

ICO The complainant requested all emails held by Dyfed-Powys Police that made reference to a particular individual from January 2008. Dyfed-Powys Police stated that it would exceed the cost limit to confirm whether or not it holds the requested information (section 12(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Dyfed-Powys Police has provided a reasonable estimate of the costs associated with complying with the request and has therefore correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to the request. However, the Commissioner finds that Dyfed-Powys Police breached section 16(1) of the FOIA in that it did not provide advice and assistance to the complainant as to how his request could have been refined to bring it within the cost limit. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take reasonable steps to advise and assist the complainant with a view to refining the request to bring it within the cost limit.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

Judges:

Anne Jones

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50498552

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.528870

The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the current draft of the proposed Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order submitted to it by the Environment Agency. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs initially refused to disclose the information on the grounds that the wording for the Order had not been finalised and a number of exemptions were applied. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs disclosed a copy of the Draft Order requested by the complainant. Accordingly, as the requested information has now been disclosed to the complainant the Commissioner has not considered whether the exemptions were correctly cited. However, the Commissioner has noted that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ handling of the request resulted in a procedural breach of section 10(1) of the Act in that it failed to respond to the information request promptly and in any event within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50287572

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.530308

The complainant requested information from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) about people convicted under the refusal to decrypt legislation. The MPS ultimately confirmed it held information within the scope of the request but withheld it citing the exemptions in sections 40(2) (personal information) and 30(1) (investigations and proceedings). It also neither confirmed nor denied that it held any other relevant information citing the exemptions in sections 23(5) (information supplied by or relating to bodies dealing with security matters) and 24(2) (national security). The Commissioner focussed his investigation on the personal information exemption. He found that the exemption at section 40(2) is engaged and requires no steps to be taken. However, the Commissioner identified a series of procedural shortcomings on the part of the public authority relating to delay (section 10) and failure to explain application of exemptions (section 17).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50295253

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.530358

The complainant has requested a copy of the draft national curriculum for history that had been shared with a named government adviser in advance of a formal proposal for changes to the national curriculum being published as part of a consultation exercise. The Department for Education (DfE) refused the request on the basis that the information was exempt under section 35(1)(a) ‘information relating to the development or formulation of government policy and the public interest favoured maintaining that exemption. During the Commissioner’s investigation the DfE applied section 36 ‘prejudice to the conduct of public affairs, in the alternative. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE was correct to refuse the request under section 35(1)(a). It follows that he has not gone on to consider the application of section 36.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50491842

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.528969

The complainant requested documents held by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) which are authored or owned by a named individual and contain the word Iraq. The FCO released five documents in redacted form and withheld one in full, citing the exemptions in sections 27 (international relations), 40 (personal information) and 43 (commercial interests). Having investigated, the Commissioner has decided that the information withheld under section 43 was not within the scope of the request. He also found that the information to which sections 27 and 40 was applied was correctly withheld. However, he identified a series of procedural shortcomings on the part of the public authority relating to delay and failure adequately to specify exemptions. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50314794

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.530329

The complainant requested information from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) relating to the European Arrest Warrant and British citizens serving criminal sentences in foreign jails. The FCO refused to identify the requests as valid requests for recorded information under the Freedom of Information Act and also failed to respond to the complainant under ‘normal course of business’. The Commissioner has investigated and finds that the requests should be dealt with under the provisions of the Act, and now requires the FCO to respond to the complainant confirming or denying whether information is held. If it is the case that information is held the FCO should either disclose the information to the complainant or issue a valid refusal notice under section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50344876

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.530330

The complainant has requested information relating to the Barnfield Fernwood Free School Project. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education (DfE) has correctly applied section 12(1) to the request dated 15 April 2013, and correctly applied section 36(2) (b) (ii) to the further request dated 13 May 2013. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50504456

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.528971

The complainant made two requests for information to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) concerning its staffing arrangements for three separate days, during which the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) were taking strike action. The MPS aggregated the two requests and cited section 12(1) of the Act, stating that the cost of compliance with the requests would exceed the appropriate limit under the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS correctly cited section 12(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50316551

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.530359

The complainant has requested information from the Ramsbury and Wanborough Surgery concerning the surgery and its expenditure for 2009-2011. The Practice initially provided some information but argued the remainder was commercially sensitive. During the course of the investigation it explained that it does not hold total GP pay, dispensary income and profit figures for the purposes of the FOIA as it cannot separate the NHS information requested from the combined NHS and private information that it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Practice does hold total GP pay, dispensary income and profit figures for the purposes of the FOIA. However he considers this information to be exempt under section 43(2) of the FOIA. He therefore does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50420107

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.527961

The complainant has requested a list of the fields in an ESA85 Medical Report completed by an Atos Healthcare professional that are automatically populated or overwritten by the Logical Integrated Medical Assessment (LiMA) system. The Department for Work and Pension (DWP)’s position is that some parts of the requested information are not held, other parts have already been provided, and that any relevant technical information is exempt information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that any relevant information held is covered by section 43(2) of FOIA. He does not therefore require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50488018

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.528974

The complainant made a request to the public authority for information regarding a complaint he had previously made against a local authority. The public authority refused the request under section 44 of the Act which provides for an exemption from the right to know where disclosure is prohibited under any other enactment. It said that the relevant statutory prohibition was section 32(2) of the Local Government Act 1974. The Commissioner has found that section 44 was correctly applied; he requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50353620

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.530295

IPO The complainant has requested details of the Town Clerk’s salary. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sandown Town Council has correctly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA (although it did not inform the complainant of the specific exemption being relied upon). He does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50500311

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.528706

ICO The complainant has requested information related to a high profile prosecution under the listed building legislation in respect of Darsham House. The Commissioner’s decision is that Suffolk Coastal District Council has correctly applied the exceptions at regulations 12(5)(f), 12(5)(b) and 13. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0458198

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.527890

Monetary Penalty Notice

Citations:

[2013] UKICO 2013-17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.527886

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50082560

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.533417

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50294487

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.531683

ICO The complainant has requested copies of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council’s (‘the council’) annual IT health checks. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is not entitled to rely on the exemption for health and safety at section 38 of the FOIA as a basis to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 38 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50495010

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.528812

The complainants have requested information from the Nursing and Midwifery Council which, if held, would have included details as to the identity of witnesses who provided information to the NMC during its investigation of a fitness to practice complaint and a copy of all case material. The NMC refused to confirm or deny whether or not the requested information was held under section 40(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the NMC was correct to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5) of the FOIA. He therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50492136

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.528498

ICO The complainant requested a copy of a report relating to the handling of her son’s case by social services department of LBBD. The complainant made their request on 6/4/05 and no response was received. Therefore the Council failed to comply with section 10. Since a response has now been sent, the Commissioner does not require any further action.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50074953

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.533278

ICO Information was requested about the sums of money spent by BNFL on various measures relating to public relations and corporate social responsibility. BNFL failed to respond to this request within 20 working days. The response to the information request stated that to provide all the information requested would have incurred costs exceeding the limit of Aandpound;450. No information was provided as to how the cost estimate had been formed or how the complainant could refine their request so that it would be possible to comply without exceeding the cost limit. Therefore this Decision Notice also concludes that BNFL has failed in its duty to provide advice and assistance. As the request was responded to, albeit not within the 20 working days limit, and as the BNFL has since responded to a refined information request made by the complainant, the Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken by BNFL.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50072719

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.533277

IOC The complainant requested information about the Channel project, which is a counter-terrorism project that aims to intervene and assist individuals who are at risk of becoming involved in violent extremism. The public authority refused the request and cited exemptions, including that provided by section 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner finds that this exemption was applied correctly and so the public authority is not required to disclose the requested information. However, the Commissioner also finds that the public authority did not comply with all of its procedural obligations under the Act in that it did not provide a specific subsection for section 31(1). Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0030 has been disposed of by way of a consent order.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50321819

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.531910

ICO The complainant requested various information concerning the operation of West Felton Parish Council (the Council). The Council did not provide a valid response to these requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the requests within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the Council provide a response to the requests that complies with section 1 of the FOIA. This response should, unless a provision removing that obligation is claimed, confirm or deny whether recorded information falling within the scope of each of the requests is held. In relation to any information that is held, this should either be disclosed, or reasoning valid for the purposes of the FOIA should be given as to why this information will not be disclosed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50459426

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.530044

The complainant requested an email that accompanied a three page report from Oxfordshire County Council to Activate Learning, formerly Oxford and Cherwell Valley College (the College). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority did not deal with the request in accordance with the FOIA. This is because the public authority provided its response outside the statutory 20 working days and it has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As the requested information was provided during the course of the investigation, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50526176

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.527294

The complainant has requested a copy of an agreed licence which council minutes referred to in 2010. The council provided a copy of a licence to the complainant however sections for the date and for the signatory had been blacked out as if redacted. The complainant wrote back to the authority and said that he understood that the licence was in fact only draft, and that it seemed clear from the licence provided to him that the blacked out sections did not in fact redact any information. He therefore asked the council to confirm whether the licence which had been sent to him was the agreed licence, and whether the blacked out sections redacted any information from the licence. The council did not however respond to him. Following the Commissioner contacting the council it then responded to the complainant confirming the copy was a draft and that no information had been redacted from the document on 16 January 2014. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request to explain the redacted sections of the document was a request for review requiring the council to respond under Regulation 11(1). The council’s failure to respond to that request within 40 working days is a breach of Regulation 11(4). However as the council then responded to the complainant on 17 January 2014 the council had complied with the requirements of the Regulations at that point. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50513836

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.527292

The complainant has requested information broadly concerning emails which refer to missing Doctor Who episodes. 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

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50520320

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.527302

The complainant has requested from Basingstoke and Dean Borough Council (‘the council’) the advice requested and received from Counsel. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied the exception where disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair trial or the ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a criminal nature. He does require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FER0512594

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.527297

The complainant has requested information relating to Barclays Private Bank and money laundering. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) refused to provide the requested information under sections 21, 40(2), 43(2) and 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA has correctly applied section 21, 40(2), 43(2) and 44(1)(a) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50522766

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.527293

ICO The complainant requested inforation about white collar crime. Gwent Police refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA. The complainant refined her request to statistics that Gwent Police provide to the Home Office about the types of crime. The complainant has not received a substantive response to this refined request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Gwent Police failed to respond to the request and therefore breached its obligations under section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to state what information it holds within the scope of the complainant’s request; and communicate the information it holds to the complainant and/or issue a refusal notice in respect of all or the parts of the information it intends to withhold in accordance with section 17 of the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0173 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50447841

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.529628

ICO The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to Suffolk County Council for a copy of the Combined Aerial Rescue Pump Report. The council refused to disclose this information and applied section 40(2), section 41 and section 43(2). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the council withdrew its application of section 41 and section 43(2), it also applied section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner considers that section 36(2)(b)(i) was correctly applied in this case however the public interest arguments in favour of disclosure outweigh the public interest arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption and therefore the information should be disclosed. The Commissioner considers that section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) were incorrectly applied in this case. The Commissioner does however consider that section 40(2) was correctly applied to some parts of the information and therefore this information should be withheld.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50317447

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.530620

ICO The complainant requested legal advice provided in connection with a Flexible Working Policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct to withhold the information within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemption at section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50411701

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.529081

ICO The complainant has requested all communications since 1 January 2012 between East Devon County Council and Devon County Council officers or members in relation to parking restrictions and/ or parking enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Devon District Council (council) has breached section 10 of the FOIA in not responding to the request in the 20 working day timeframe. As the council has now responded to the request, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50482158

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.528265

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to reports held by Monitor. Monitor has disclosed some of the requested information, however it refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 31, 33, 40 and 41 of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(c) of FOIA is engaged in relation to the entirety of the withheld information and that the public interest in all the circumstances of the cases favours maintaining the exemption. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50496598

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.528689

ICO The complainant has requested information regarding a planning application. The Commissioner considers that there is one FOIA request and the rest are EIR requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that Arun District Council has breached regulations 5, 6 and 11 of the EIR and section 17 of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FER0441296

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.529970

ICO The complainant has requested information about a proposed coalmine in Bangladesh known as the Phulbari Coal Project, and the London-based, AIM-listed company backing the project, GCM Resources. UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) withheld one document in full under section 27(1)(a) and (d), section 43(2) and section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It made another redaction under section 27(1)(a) and (d) FOIA to another document. Further information was provided in part however this does not fall within the scope of the complaint. The Commissioner’s decision is that UKTI has correctly applied section 27(1)(a) FOIA to withhold the document in full and to make the redaction referred to above. The Commissioner did not therefore consider the application of section 27(1)(d), section 43(2) or section 40(2) FOIA any further. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50476007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.528225