IOC The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information requested on the basis of the exception at regulation 13 of the EIR.The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld
[2013] UKICO FER0489877
England and Wales
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.528425
ICO The complainant has requested copies of correspondence the public authority had with McCarthy and Stone regarding a property in Cambridge. The request was for information over the last three years. Cambridgeshire County Council . . disclosed most information but made some redactions which it later identified as being under regulations 12(5)(e) and 13(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the agreed sale price and dates and the names and contact details of third parties from the information. He does not require the Council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.e – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld
[2013] UKICO FS50481810
England and Wales
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.528426
The complainant requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’) the workplace email addresses of all of the University’s staff. The University confirmed that it held the requested recorded information, but believed that it was exempt. It applied section 21(1) [information accessible by other means] in its refusal notice and upheld this position at internal review. The case was referred to the Commissioner, where the complainant specifically asked the Commissioner to consider the operation of section 11(1) [means by which communication to be made] in relation to his request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the University continued to apply section 21(1) to all the workplace email addresses except for three. Two fell outside the scope of the request, and the third was an omission. The University released the third email address to the complainant. The Commissioner has carefully considered this case. He has found that section 21 has been appropriately applied by the University and that its interpretation of section 11(1) was correct. However, he has found that it breached section 10(1) in failing to disclose the one non-exempt email address to the complainant. As this has now been disclosed, he requires no remedial steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0120 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 11 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld
[2011] UKICO FS50310776
England and Wales
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.530431
The complainant submitted a request to Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’) for information from environmental records held on a property in Willenhall. The Council confirmed that it held the requested information and made this available for inspection within 20 working days. The complainant contends that whilst the Council responded within 20 working days, it did not respond ‘as soon as possible’. The Commissioner has investigated and has found that because of an administrative error, the Council failed to make the requested information available as soon as possible and has consequently breached regulation 5(2). He does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld
[2011] UKICO FER0355639
England and Wales
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.530402
ICO The complainant has requested information concerning meetings and correspondence with a named individual before and after a Question Time programme. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall inside the FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld
[2013] UKICO FS50494046
England and Wales
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.528412
ICO The complainant submitted a request to the City of York Council (‘the Council’) for information from environmental records held on a property in York. The Council stated that it would only provide a collated version of this information upon provision of a fee. During the course of the investigation, the Council also informed the Commissioner that it relied on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b), which applies to manifestly unreasonable requests. The Commissioner finds that Council has breached regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR as it failed to make the requested information available on request within the statutory time for compliance. The Council has also breached regulation 6(2)(c) by failing to make the complainant aware of the appeal provisions of the EIR when refusing to provide information in a specific format. The Council has breached regulation 8(3) by charging an unreasonable fee for providing some of the information. The Commissioner finds that the Council applied the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) incorrectly. The Council has breached regulation 14(3)(a) by failing to cite the exception it relied upon in its response to the complainant, and regulation 14(3)(b) by failing to inform the complainant of the details of its public interest test in relation to the exception. The Commissioner requires the Council to make the requested information available for the complainant in the form of a print-out within 35 days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 8 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld
[2011] UKICO FER0349470
England and Wales
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.530446
ICO The complainant requested from Cambridgeshire County Council (the council) its most up to date adopted Policy on access to social care, domiciliary care, health and medical records for a deceased individual. The council disclosed its Data Protection Policy and confirmed it complied with the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Access to Health Records Act 1990. However, it stated that it did not hold an adopted policy on access to a deceased’s records. The Commissioner’s decision, on the balance of probabilities is that, with the exception of the information supplied, the council does not hold the requested information. He therefore finds that the council complied with section 1(1) of the Act and requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld
[2011] UKICO FS50356452
England and Wales
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.530444
The complainant has requested information concerning a meeting which took place on 13 June 2016 between his MP and the then Minister of State for Skills, Nick Boles MP and civil servants. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy originally withheld the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the FOIA but latterly, during the Commissioner’s investigation, applied section 14(1) to refuse the request on the grounds that it was vexatious. The Commissioner has decided that Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50654431
England and Wales
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.617567
The complainant has requested a full copy of a report obtained by the former Department of Energy and Climate Change (which became part of the newly formed Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in July 2016) from Evercore Partners International LLP on investment and financing considerations for new nuclear investment in Great Britain. The Department withheld the report in its entirety under regulations 12(5)(e)(confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and 12(5)(f)(interests of the person who provided the information) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS correctly withheld the report under regulation 12(5)(e) and that at the time of the request the public interest balance favoured maintaining the exception. She does not therefore require BEIS to take any steps as a result of this notice.
EIR 12(5)(e): Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FER0656407
England and Wales
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.602385
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and Toyota regarding the company’s investment in its Burnaston car plant in Derbyshire, which was announced on 16 March 2017. BEIS originally withheld the three documents within scope of the request under sections 35 (formulation or development of government policy), 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43(2)(prejudice to commercial interests) of the FOIA and latterly applied section 29(1)(a)(prejudice to the economic interests of the United Kingdom or of any part of the United Kingdom). BEIS provided the complainant with one of the three documents, (a redacted copy of an email exchange) at internal review and advised the Commissioner during her investigation that they did not consider that section 35 applied to the two remaining withheld documents. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS correctly withheld the remaining two documents under section 43(2) of the Act and that at the time of the request the public interest balance favoured maintaining the exemption. She does not therefore require BEIS to take any steps as a result of this notice.
FOI 43: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50692003
England and Wales
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.621308
The complainant has requested a copy of a letter sent to the CEO of Nissan from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) originally withheld the letter under sections 22(1) (information intended for future publication) and 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the FOIA and latterly applied section 29(1) (a) (prejudice the economic interests of the United Kingdom or of any part of the United Kingdom) during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS correctly withheld the letter under section 22(1) of the Act and that at the time of the request the public interest balance favoured maintaining the exemption. She does not therefore require BEIS to take any steps as a result of this notice. However, the Commissioner has found that BEIS breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to provide a substantive response to the request within 20 working days.
FOI 22: Not upheld
[2018] UKICO FS50662630
England and Wales
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.617346
The complainant has requested information held by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy concerning the Star Chamber sessions referenced in the Government’s Regulatory Futures Review. The Department originally withheld all the information held within scope of the complainant’s request under Section 35(1)(a)(formulation or development of government policy). During the Commissioner’s investigation the Department provided the complainant with some of the information requested, with redactions for information exempt under Section 35(1)(a) and Sections 29(1)(a)(economic interests of the United Kingdom or of any part of the United Kingdom) 35(1)(b)(Ministerial communications) and 40(2)(third party personal data), which the Department applied latterly to some of the information held. The Commissioner has found that all the residual withheld information is exempt from disclosure under Section 35(1)(a) and requires no steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
FOI 35: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50672948
England and Wales
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.621223
[2016] UKFTT 2015 – 0136 (GRC)
(Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.566161
The complainant requested information held by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) into delayed payments to suppliers the impact of the falling pound on NHS finances following the referendum on exiting the European Union. The DHSC confirmed it held a report on the analysis on the potential effects of the UK’s exit from the European Union and the rate of pound sterling on NHS finances but considered this exempt from disclosure by virtue of the exemptions at sections 43, 36, 27 and 29 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has correctly applied sections 43(2), 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) to withhold the information.
FOI 43: Complaint not upheld FOI 36: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50696060
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.621227
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (the Department) relating to any complaints it may have made to the BBC over a five month period relating to any of its radio, TV or on-line production. The Department responded to the request, citing section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department is entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA in this case. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50724695
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.621317
The complainant originally made a request to what was then the Department of Health for information relating to the use of the NHS logo by the Vote Leave Campaign in the run up to the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. His original request was refused, but he later resubmitted that request as he considered it possible that with the passage of time the sensitivity of the information may have declined. When making this new request he also requested all the information held about the Department’s handling of his original request. In response to this new request a limited amount of information was disclosed to the complainant. Ultimately however section 36 – prejudice to the conduct of public, affairs was applied to all the remaining information, section 42 – legal professional privilege was also applied to a significant amount of this information, with sections 41 – information provided in confidence, and section 40 – personal information applied to a limited amount of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has correctly withheld the majority of the information under a combination of sections 36(2)(b) and 42. The exemption provided by section 36(2)(c) cannot be relied on in the public interest. Section 40 does apply in respect of the personal data of junior officials. However there is a very limited amount of information which is not exempt under any of these exemptions, and to which section 41 has not been applied. This information has been identified in a confidential annex supplied exclusively to the DHSC. The public authority has also breached section 10 in that it failed to respond to the request within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information identified in the confidential annex.
FOI 42: Complaint partly upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 36: Complaint partly upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50680313
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.617786
The complainant has requested information on the guidance provided to doctors in respect of treating patients who may have suffered sexual abuse. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) originally denied holding the information. At the internal review stage the DH confirmed the information was held but refused the request under section 21 – information reasonably accessible to the applicant, and provided the complainant with links to where the information could be accessed on the internet. Unfortunately the links did not work and ultimately the DHSC provided the complainant with electronic copies of the documents it held. Inevitably this was outside the 20 working days for responding to requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC breached section 10 by failing to provide the requested information within 20 working days. By failing to issue a refusal notice in respect of the exemption it was relying on at the time of the internal review within 20 working days of receipt of the request the DHSC also breached section 17(1). However the Commissioner finds that the DHSC did not breach it obligations to provide advice and assistance under section 16 as alleged by the complainant. As the DHSC has now provided the complainant with the requested information the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
FOI 17: Complaint partly upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50689986
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.617350
The complainant made four requests to DHSC for information relating to an ‘efficiency’ meeting from June 2015, information relating to four First Tier Tribunal cases, information relating to a meeting between PS(H) and Simon Stevens dated 23 September 2014 and information relating to DHSC Twitter accounts. The DHSC refused to comply with the requests under section 14 FOIA as it considers them to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC correctly applied section 14 FOIA to the requests. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50696713
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.617581
The complainant requested information regarding the decision to change the public authority’s official name from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request relying on the exemptions at section 36(2)(b) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was not entitled rely on section 36(2)(b), and in exercise of her discretion, further concluded that some of the information in scope was exempt on the basis of the exemption at section 42(1) FOIA.
FOI 42: Complaint not upheld FOI 36: Complaint upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50703296
England and Wales
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.617780
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport HM Treasury (DCMS) seeking communications and minutes of meetings between ministers and the Association of British Bookmakers concerning the review into fixed odds betting terminals. DCMS confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure of the exemption contained at section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
FOI 35: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50703741
England and Wales
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.617568
The court considered the disclosure of unproved allegations as between police forces. Police authorities had disclosed information concerning the claimant to each other and in one case to a local authority. The information related to allegations of criminal conduct by the applicant towards children. These had been investigated but never prosecuted. The information was divulged to a prospective employer following the application by the claimant for a job as a primary school teacher.
Held: The court should consider whether a ‘pressing need’ could be shown.
There was no ‘decision’ such as to attract an obligation requiring to be judged according to the rules of procedural fairness (and therefore by implication no Article 6(1) claim): ‘What then of the position of the D constabulary when the information was passed by them to the local education authority? There cannot be the slightest doubt that the local education authority had a lawful interest and a ‘pressing’ need to receive the information which was in the possession of the county police since it was or could be important as affecting the decision which it was required to make. In one sense, the local education authority was the body best qualified to decide what, if anything, it would make of the information with which it was being provided. If it was uncertain about the strength of the complaints and needed to know more in order that it could make an informed decision, it was always at liberty to ask for assistance from the communicating police force for its opinion about that matter. It would thereafter be for it to decide whether, or to what extent, the non-conviction material should inform its decision. Before it did, it would, of course, have to provide the applicant with at least the gist of that information and offer him the opportunity to make representations about it.’
Turner J
[2001] 1 WLR 461
England and Wales
Cited – Dr D, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health CA 19-Jul-2006
The doctor complained of the use of Alert letters where he was suspected of sexual abuse of patients, but the allegations were unsubstantiated. He complained particularly that he had been acquitted in a criminal court and then also by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.244746
In September 2007, the complainant requested a copy of the 2006 report of the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner’s (OSC) Inspection Report relating to the BBC. The complainant also requested a copy of the OSC’s covering letter and the BBC response to the report. The public authority provided the complainant with the information requested but withheld some of the information under the provisions of section 31 (the Law enforcement exemption), section 40 (personal data) and section 42 (legal professional privilege) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner found that the public authority correctly applied sections 31(1) (a) and 42(1) to the withheld information, however the Commissioner found that the BBC had breached section 10(1) of the Act in responding to the complainant’s request outside the statutory time limit.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld
[2010] UKICO FS50188663
England and Wales
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.531413
The complainant made a request to the BBC for schemas and associated documentation for databases used by TV Licensing to send letters to unlicensed addresses. The BBC refused to disclose the information and applied section 31(1) (a) (b) (d) and (g) of the Act. It also stated that the information would be exempt under section 43(2) of the Act. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the BBC applied section 12(1) of the Act and argued that complying with the request would require it to exceed the ‘appropriate limit’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC is entitled to refuse to comply with the request for schema or schemas under section 12(1) of the Act. The Commissioner also finds that the BBC should offer the complainant advice and assistance under section 16 of the Act as to how his request may be narrowed. The Commissioner also finds that the BBC breached sections 1(1)(a), 10(1) and section 17(5) of the Act in its handling of the request. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0141 has been disposed of by way of a consent order.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld
[2010] UKICO FS50218726
England and Wales
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.531470
The complainant requested information relating to a new IT system procured by the public authority. The public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The conclusion of the Commissioner is that, in failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt, the public authority did not comply with the requirements of sections 10(1), 17(1) and 17(5).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld
[2010] UKICO FS50288006
England and Wales
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.531601
ICO The complainant requested information from the Marine Management Organisation regarding the number of days vessels spent at sea in the Western Waters area fishing for scallops in each of the first two quarters of 2012, based on calendar day and 24 hour period calculations. The MMO refused the request under regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held). It accepted that it held lists of vessels for the first two quarters of 2012 with days at sea calculated on calendar day and 24 hour period basis. However, as it did not hold lists with days apportioned between the appropriate quarters where a vessel’s fishing trip spanned two quarters as the complainant was seeking, it argued that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(a) is not applicable as the MMO does hold the requested information as it holds the necessary data to be able to provide the information in the form requested by the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the information in the form that she requested it or to issue a refusal notice setting out the exception, or exceptions, that it seeks to rely on.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Upheld
[2013] UKICO FER0463989
England and Wales
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.527846
ICO The complainant requested from the public authority information generated by an application to expand the Port of Southampton. The public authority’s eventual position was that it had released all the requested information save for personal data it withheld under regulation 13 of the EIR. After investigation the Commissioner found that regulation 13 had been correctly applied but that there was some additional requested information which had not been released. The Commissioner therefore requires that additional information to be provided to the complainant. In its handling of the request, the Commissioner has also found the public authority to have breached regulations 5 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld
[2011] UKICO FER0297270
England and Wales
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.530356
Police and criminal justice – The complainant asked for information from three complaint files. The files held by the public authority related to complaints he had made about another public authority. The third file recorded information about two different complaints. The public authority interpreted the request narrowly and did not consider access to the third file until after the Commissioner began his investigation. However, as the IPCC later considered access and cited section 40(1) in respect of the information on that file, the Commissioner considered the application of that exemption. He has concluded that the section 40(1) exemption did apply. He further concluded that the public authority was not in fact obliged to comply with 1(1)(a) in this regard by virtue of section 40(5). The Commissioner also decided that the information on the two 2000 files would constitute the complainant’s personal data if it were held. Therefore the public authority was not obliged to comply with section 1(1)(a) in that regard by virtue of section 40(5). In failing to inform the complainant that section 40(5) applied the public authority breached section 17(1) of the Act. However the Commissioner has not ordered any remedial steps in the light of the contents of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 17: Upheld
[2007] UKICO FS50156208
England and Wales
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.533096
The complainant requested information relating to the BBC’s total taxi spend over the previous financial year and to the BBC’s contract and taxi spend with a ground transportation booking and management company called One Transport. The BBC provided answers to some of the requested information but withheld part of the information under section 43(2). The Commissioner has concluded that section 43(2) is not engaged. The Commissioner also found that the BBC had not met the requirements of sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), and 17(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2010/0150 allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld
[2010] UKICO FS50259955
England and Wales
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.531541
ICO The complainant requested information from the Marine Management Organisation about the selection process for a fishing industry management group. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the MMO either disclosed information, or confirmed that it did not hold information, in respect of each of the different parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MMO has not complied with section 10 of FOIA in its handling of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld
[2012] UKICO FER0459192
England and Wales
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.530091
The complainant requested the NHS Commissioning Board (referred to as ‘the public authority’ throughout this notice) to disclose the papers presented to the board meeting of 14 December 2012 and the minutes recorded. The public authority refused to disclose this information, citing section 36(2)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has reviewed the withheld information and considered the public authority’s application of section 36(2)(b) of the FOIA. He has concluded that section 36(2)(b) of the FOIA is engaged in this case. However, he is of the view that the public interest in maintaining this exemption is outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. He therefore requires the public authority to take further action as follows: The public authority should disclose the papers submitted to the board meeting of 14 December 2012 and the minutes recorded of that meeting (labelled Appendix F and G in its response to the Commissioner dated 29 August 2013).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld
[2013] UKICO FS50492210
England and Wales
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.528909
ICO The complainant made two requests to the Marine Management Organisation (the MMO). Request 1 was for information relating to the Port of Tyne dredging trial, and various reports. The MMO provided some information, withheld further information under regulation 13 of the EIR, and advised that the remainder was not held. Request 2 repeated request 1 and requested further information. The MMO refused request 2 under regulation 12(4)(b) on the basis that it was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MMO handled request 1 in accordance with the EIR, except for the names of some officials which were wrongly withheld under regulation 13. However the MMO failed to carry out an internal review in relation to request 2, thus breaching regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of officials as indicated in the confidential annex to this notice; and conduct an internal review of the MMO’s handling of request 2 which meets the requirements of regulation 11 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 11 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 13 – Complaint Partly Upheld
[2012] UKICO FER0379965
England and Wales
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.529413
The complainant requested to know whether the IPCC had carried out an investigation into one officer and if so requested a copy of the IPCC investigation of the officer and another officer. The IPCC informed the complainant that it was not obliged to confirm or deny if the information is held by virtue of section 40(5) of the Act. Having investigated the case the Commissioner is satisfied that the IPCC correctly applied section 40(5) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld
[2009] UKICO FS50222787
England and Wales
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.532103
The complainant has requested information on the NHS Commissioning Board’s (referred to in this Notice as NHS England) powers and the sections of the legislation which set out these powers. NHS England explained the legislation which sets out its powers and provided links to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. He also accepts that section 21 is engaged in relation to the information which NHS England provided links to. However, he does find that NHS England breached section 10(1) and 17(1) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld
[2014] UKICO FS50508784
England and Wales
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.527382
Rule 9(6) was ultra vires section 69 of RIPA as being incompatible with article 6 of the Convention but that ‘in all other respects the Rules are valid and binding on the Tribunal and are compatible with articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention’.
IPT/01/77, IPT/01/62
Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000 (SI 2000/2665)
England and Wales
Cited – A, Regina (on The Application of) v B; Regina (A) v Director of Establishments of the Security Service SC 9-Dec-2009
B, a former senior member of the security services wished to publish his memoirs. He was under contractual and statutory obligations of confidentiality. He sought judicial review of a decision not to allow him to publish parts of the book, saying it . .
Cited – A, Regina (on The Application of) v B; Regina (A) v Director of Establishments of the Security Service SC 9-Dec-2009
B, a former senior member of the security services wished to publish his memoirs. He was under contractual and statutory obligations of confidentiality. He sought judicial review of a decision not to allow him to publish parts of the book, saying it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.383933
The complainant has requested information about a motoring offence which he allegedly committed from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny holding the information, citing sections 40(5)(a) and (b)(i) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was correct to cite section 40(5)(a). No steps are required.
FOI 40: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50676181
England and Wales
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.593868
The complainant has requested information about the late Lord Mountbatten (1900-1979) from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS disclosed some information but refused to disclose the remainder citing various sections of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation this position was revised. The MPS advised that it was unable to locate one file and therefore did not hold it. In respect of the remaining information it advised that it found the request to be vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on balance of probabilities, the missing file is no longer held. She also finds that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 14(1). No steps are required.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 14: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50637323
England and Wales
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.579873
The complainant has requested information about whether the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) has begun to determine if Tony Blair has committed the common law criminal offence of misconduct in public office over decisions he took which resulted in the military invasion of Iraq in 2003. The MPS would neither confirm nor deny holding any information citing the exemptions at sections 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(5)(b)(i) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on 40(5)(b)(i) to neither confirm nor deny whether any information is held; she did not therefore consider section 30(3). No steps are required.
FOI 40: Not upheld
[2017] UKICO FS50669724
England and Wales
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.583871
The complainant has requested information about a named police officer from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). Having initially refused to confirm or deny holding any information by virtue of section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA, the MPS subsequently found the request to be vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious. No steps are required.
FOI 14: Not upheld
[2016] UKICO FS50646692
England and Wales
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.579728
The complainant requested information about Council Tax liability Orders. Bridgend County Borough Council (‘the Council’) provided some information and stated other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
[2018] UKICO fs50729273
England and Wales
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.621297
Claim for misuse of private information, breach of confidence and for alleged breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998. Appeal from strike out of claim as abuse of process.
Nicklin J
[2018] EWHC 1880 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.620616
The complainant made two requests to the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) for information relating to travel arrangements made by or on behalf of the son of the then Chief Constable. The PSNI refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing the exemption at section 40(5) (third party personal data). The Commissioner considers that section 40(5) has been incorrectly applied in this instance and the PSNI is required to confirm or deny whether it holds information relating to the first request and to consider the second request accordingly.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld
[2010] UKICO FS50202772
England and Wales
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.531531
The complainant has requested information regarding the refund of travel costs whilst on temporary admission to the UK. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was correct to state that it did not hold any further recorded information in relation to part of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld
[2013] UKICO FS50495438
England and Wales
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.528887
The complainant requested information regarding the number of police message forms that were served on ex-security force members in Northern Ireland during a particular period. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (the PSNI) refused the request under section 12 of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the PSNI applied section 12 correctly, and therefore he does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld
[2010] UKICO FS50216426
England and Wales
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.531533
The complainant requested the names and details of the roles of staff working under former Chief Constable of Durham Police, Jon Stoddart on the Hillsborough investigation. He also requested copies of documents relating to Jon Stoddart’s secondment arrangement to the public authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information requested on the basis of the exemption at section 40(2) FOIA. The public authority does not need to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld
[2013] UKICO FS50505935
England and Wales
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.528889
The complainant requested information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (the ‘PSNI’) relating to an investigation into a murder. The PSNI refused the request, claiming that all of the requested information was exempt under section 30(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act. The PSNI initially advised the Commissioner that it had not considered whether it actually held information of the description specified in the request, and that it had come to the view that it might not hold the information. Subsequently the requested information was discovered by the PSNI, but it was intermingled with information not relevant to the request. The PSNI then sought to refuse the request under the cost limit set out in section 12. The Commissioner found that the PSNI had not adequately searched for the information at the time of the request, and that its refusal notice failed to comply with the requirements of section 17 of the Act. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that the request could correctly be refused under section 12 of the Act, as the process of extracting the requested information from the physical files would exceed the cost limit. Accordingly the Commissioner does not require the PSNI to take any remedial steps in relation to this request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld
[2009] UKICO FS50152489
Northern Ireland
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.532039
The complainant has requested the locations of fixed number plate recognition cameras operated by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (the PSNI). The PSNI refused the request under sections 24(1) and 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI was entitled to rely on section 31 as a basis for withholding the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not upheld
[2012] UKICO FS50407932
England and Wales
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.529225
The complainant has requested information about a Certificate of Application, in relation to immigration. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has applied section 40(2) appropriately. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld
[2013] UKICO FS50498285
England and Wales
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.528888
A servant, Moat, sought to use a secret formula of his employer’s. The plaintiff requested an injunction to restrain use of the formula.
Held: The Vice Chancellor reiterated the principles, as to which he said there was ‘no doubt’, adding: ‘The Defendant admits that the secret was communicated to him by Thomas Moat . . The question then is whether there was an equity against him; and I am of opinion that there was. It was clearly a breach of faith and of contract on the part of Thomas Moat to communicate the secret. The Defendant derives under that breach of faith and of contract, and I think he can gain no title by it . . the cases of Tipping v Clarke and Prince Albert v Strange shew that the equity prevails against parties deriving under the breach of contract or duty.
It might indeed be different if the Defendant was a purchaser for value of the secret without notice of any obligation affecting it; and the Defendant’s case was attempted to be put upon this ground . . but I do not think that this view of the case can avail him . . So far as the secret is concerned he is a mere volunteer deriving under a breach of trust or of contract.’
Sir George Turner VC
(1851) 9 Hare 241, [1851] EngR 790, (1851) 68 ER 492
England and Wales
Appeal from – Morison v Moat 1852
Affirmed . .
Cited – Lord Ashburton v Pape CA 1913
Pape’s bankruptcy discharge was opposed by Lord Ashburton. He subpoenaed Brooks, a clerk to Lord Ashburton’s solicitor and obtained privileged letters written by Lord Ashburton to Mr Nocton, which Pape proposed to use. Pape and Brooks had colluded. . .
Approved – Lamb v Evans CA 1893
The plaintiff printed and published a multi-lingual European trade directory, engaging the defendants as commission agents to solicit paid entries for the directory. The businessmen could, if they wished, supply wood blocks or other materials from . .
Cited – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.270393
The complainant requested information relating to the front gardens of a number of flats being fenced off to create individual gardens. The London Borough of Islington (the council) said that it did not hold the information requested. During the Commissioner’s investigation, it conceded that it held some information and it provided that to the complainant. The complainant was not satisfied and considered that more information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. However he found that the authority had breached its obligation to offer reasonable advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 9 – Complaint Upheld
[2011] UKICO FS50373151
England and Wales
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.531170
The complainant has, over a period of three years, made a series of requests stemming from Wakefield Metropolitan District Council’s application of its high-hedges policy. Given the extent of its communications with the complainant about this issue, the Council deemed the latest of the requests as vexatious pursuant to section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Whilst the Commissioner believes that this matter was finely balanced, he has found that section 14(1) does apply and therefore has not upheld the complaint. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0082 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld
[2009] UKICO FS50178424
England and Wales
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.532197
The complainant wrote to the London Borough of Islington (the council) and requested all information held by the council which relates to the late [name redacted]. The Information Commissioner’s (the Commissioner) decision is that the council did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA in that it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld
[2011] UKICO FS50398402
England and Wales
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.531081
The authority had carried out an inquiry into its handling of an application for a care order. It sought to restrain republication of the report.
Held: There were competing requirements under the Convention. Any jurisdiction to restrain publication must be exercised in such circumstances only to protect the children involved. The scope to act for adults under a disability by letters patent or parens patriae had lapsed, but an inherent jurisdiction remained. Pending any statutory creation, the court would act through the common law doctrine of necessity. Here the action was required for protective rather than a custodial jurisdiction, and again the competing interests under the Convention had to be weighed. In both cases the requirements were met. For the children, and injunction was continued, and for the adults one was made. The balance came down in favour of protecting vulnerable adults by preventing publication of a local authority report: ‘They have had considerable and distressing disruption of their lives and are, as set out in the report, vulnerable. A period of peace, stability and a chance to settle down again after the very real upset of their lives is threatened by the likely intense media cover if this report is published. They are all under some disability but not such, as far as I know, as to prevent possibly all of them, but certainly at least 4 of them, from understanding the impact of press and other media intrusion. That intrusion would affect their daily lives and would be very likely to be disruptive, distressing and contrary to the need for them to settle back in the home. They clearly have rights under article 8 which are engaged and would be breached if the report is published. I am satisfied that publication of the report would be deeply damaging and detrimental to their welfare.
The factors supporting the rights of the vulnerable adults under article 8 have to be balanced against the right of the local authority to publish under article 10. I have found that it would be lawful on their behalf to interfere with the article 10 right of freedom of expression. I have considered very carefully whether to exercise the court’s discretion in favour of the vulnerable adults would be a disproportionate response to the contents of the report, having regard to the importance attached to article 10 by section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am also fully aware of the factors in favour of not restraining publication of volume 1. I am satisfied, however, that the balancing exercise comes down in favour of recognising the importance of the protection of the vulnerable adults by the granting of a declaration to that effect.’
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P
[2003] EWHC Fam 2746, Times 05-Dec-2003, Gazette 22-Jan-2004, [2004] EWHC 2746 (Fam), [2004] Fam 96, [2004] Fam Law 179, [2004] 1 FCR 113, [2004] 1 All ER 480, [2004] 2 WLR 926, (2004) 7 CCL Rep 426, (2004) 76 BMLR 210, [2004] BLGR 117, [2004] 1 FLR 541
European Convention on Human Rights 8 10
England and Wales
Cited – In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) HL 4-May-1989
Where a patient lacks capacity, there is the power to provide him with whatever treatment or care is necessary in his own best interests. Medical treatment can be undertaken in an emergency even if, through a lack of capacity, no consent had been . .
Cited – E v Channel Four, News International Ltd and St Helens Borough Council FD 1-Jun-2005
The applicant sought an order restraining publication by the defendants of material, saying she did not have capacity to consent to the publication. She suffered a multiple personality disorder. She did herself however clearly wish the film to be . .
Cited – In re PS (an Adult), Re; City of Sunderland v PS by her litigation friend the Offcial Solcicitor and CA; Re PS (Incapacitated or Vulnerable Adult) FD 9-Mar-2007
The patient an elderly lady with limited mental capacity was to be returned from hospital, but her daughter said she was to come home. The local authority sought to prevent this, wanting to return her to a residential unit where she had lived for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.188626
ICO The applicant made a number of requests for information relating to a report entitled, ‘Research into aerodynamic modulation of wind turbine noise.’ The University refused to disclose the information requested, and cited regulations 12(5)(e) and (f) in relation to three of the requests. The complainant requested an internal review of this decision. After carrying out an internal review the University upheld its previous decision. During the investigation the University informed the Commissioner that it also sought to rely upon regulations 13(1) and 13(2)(a)(i) to withhold some of the information. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that the University could not rely upon regulations 12(5)(e) and (f) as the withheld information was information on emissions. However, the Commissioner partially upheld the University’s use of regulations 13(1) and 13(2)(a)(i). Therefore he believes that the withheld information should be disclosed in a redacted format. The Commissioner also believes that the University did not meet the requirements of regulations 5(1), 5(2) and 14(1).
EIR 5: Upheld EIR 5: Upheld EIR 13: Partly upheld
[2008] UKICO FER0184376
England and Wales
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.532798
The complainant requested details of any complaints submitted about enforcing officers at the Isle of Wight Council who issue fixed penalty notices. In view of the history and context of the request, the Council believed the request to be vexatious and therefore claimed that section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applied. The Commissioner has considered the case and is of the view that the issue of vexatiousness is not clear-cut. However, on balance, the Commissioner has decided that section 14(1) was applied correctly. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0171 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld
[2010] UKICO FS50274270
England and Wales
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.531661
(Judgment) Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to preliminary investigations into State aid schemes in the port sector of all Member States – Refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual – Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 – Concept of privacy – Exception relating to the protection of the objectives of inspection, investigation or audit activities – Application of ‘a general presumption – higher public interest
T-39/17, [2018] EUECJ T-39/17
European
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622610
Allowed
[2018] UKFTT 2017 – 0262 (GRC)
Data Protection Act 1998,
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621478
Allowed
[2018] UKFTT 2017 – 0223 (GRC)
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621471
Dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 2017 – 0257 (GRC)
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621473
Dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 2017 – 0256 (GRC)
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621472
Dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 2017 – 0145 (GRC)
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621468
Dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 2017 – 0270 (GRC)
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621477
Part Allowed
[2018] UKFTT 2017 – 0187 (GRC)
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621474
Dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 2018 – 0035 (GRC)
Information Tribunal (Enforcement Appeals) Rules 2005
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621470
Dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 2018 – 0058 (GRC)
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621469
Allowed
[2018] UKFTT 2017 – 0266 (GRC)
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621476
[2018] UKICO fs50726979
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621394
[2018] UKICO FS50713237
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621386
[2018] UKICO fs50718317
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621379
[2018] UKICO FS50717020
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621387
[2018] UKICO fs50718014
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621376
[2018] UKICO fer0714493
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621374
[2018] UKICO fer0709479
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621375
[2018] UKICO fer0712149
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621381
[2018] UKICO fs50710131
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621378
[2018] UKICO fer0734676
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621372
[2018] UKICO fs50718980
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621388
[2018] UKICO fs50728055
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621380
[2018] UKICO fs50730497
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621391
[2018] UKICO fer0700353
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621371
[2018] UKICO fer0723325
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621373
[2018] UKICO fs50740807
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621390
[2018] UKICO fs50711321
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621385
[2018] UKICO fs50716550
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621389
[2018] UKICO fs50755996
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621382
[2018] UKICO fs50715250
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621367
[2018] UKICO fs50710108
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621356
[2018] UKICO fs50728056
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621363
[2018] UKICO fs50707871
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621359
[2018] UKICO fs50733175
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621362
[2018] UKICO fs50712876
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621353
[2018] UKICO fs50728052
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621361
[2018] UKICO fs50702877
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621355
[2018] UKICO fs50717434
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621360
[2018] UKICO fs50728058
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621365
[2018] UKICO fs50754272
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621350
[2018] UKICO fs50760607
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621358
[2018] UKICO fs50721907
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621369
[2018] UKICO fs50688396
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621357
[2018] UKICO fs50722835
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621370