The complainant has requested all information held by the University of Manchester [‘UoM’] (and its subsidiaries) about him and his company. UoM replied that its subsidiaries handled requests themselves and advised him to make a new request (which he did). For UoM, it asked that the complainant specified the individuals with which he had contact with. A series of phone calls occurred and the complainant refined his request to cover ten named individuals. UoM responded that it held only the communications from the complainant and no further relevant recorded information in relation to those ten individuals. The case was referred to the Commissioner and the Commissioner finds that the UoM was wrong in what it said, because it did hold relevant recorded information for the complainant’s request. However, he finds that the only information UoM holds is exempt by virtue of section 21 [reasonably accessible to the complainant through other means], section 40(1) [first party personal data] and section 42(1) [legal professional privilege]. He also finds that UoM breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) in failing to identify relevant recorded information or issuing a compliant refusal notice for the information that is exempt. He requires no further remedial steps to be taken in this case because it is not possible to remedy the procedural breaches that he has noted. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0055 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld
Citations:
[2012] UKICO FS50427699
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Information
Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.529238
