Upshire Primary Foundation School (Decision Notice) FS50435687: ICO 12 Mar 2012

Between 31 January and 10 August 2011 the complainant submitted 16 requests for information to the school. The school dealt with some of the requests. It later stated that subsequent requests were vexatious but did not specify which section of the legislation it was applying. The Information Commissioner considers that the FOIA applies to most of the requests, apart from 2 points in a request of 30 March 2011, to which the EIR applies. The school subsequently applied section 14 to the FOIA requests and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to points 3 and 5 of one of the requests, appropriately. However, the school has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA and regulations 5, 11 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld
References: [2012] UKICO FS50435687
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.529364

Upshire Primary Foundation School (Decision Notice) FS50408845: ICO 12 Mar 2012

Between 31 January and 10 August 2011 the complainant submitted 16 requests for information to the school. The school dealt with some of the requests. It later stated that subsequent requests were vexatious but did not specify which section of the legislation it was applying. The Information Commissioner considers that the FOIA applies to most of the requests, apart from 2 points in a request of 30 March 2011, to which the EIR applies. The school subsequently applied section 14 to the FOIA requests and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to points 3 and 5 of one of the requests, appropriately. However, the school has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA and regulations 5, 11 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld
References: [2012] UKICO FS50408845
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.529359

Office of Communications (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Jul 2009

The complainant requested statistics which formed the basis for a report produced by OFCOM. The information was withheld under section 44 of the Act (prohibitions on disclosure). OFCOM stated that the relevant statutory prohibition was section 393 of the Communications Act 2003. The Commissioner has considered the complaint and is satisfied that the requested information falls within the scope of the statutory prohibition and that the section 44 exemption, therefore, applies. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2009/0067 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld
References: [2009] UKICO FS50184499
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.532108

Redbridge London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Nov 2011

The complainant’s request was as follows: I should like to request all information contained in the Council’s records in relation to the above reference number. This information should be held in paper records and by electronic methods internal and external information.’ The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) was wrong to consider this request to be vexatious in line with the provisions of section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld
References: [2011] UKICO FS50350859
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.531104

Blackburn With Darwen Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Sep 2011

The complainant has requested information principally arising from a noise complaint made to Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council. This included a request to inspect his property file. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly claimed that it does not hold some of the information specified by the complainant as falling within the scope of his request. However, the Commissioner considers that the Council failed to respond to the complainant’s request to inspect his property file in accordance with regulation 6 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information on the property file to the complainant in an alternative format, such as a print-out or electronically, subject to any relevant disbursement costs that accord with regulation 8(8) of the EIR. If and where the Council considers that any or all of the information is exempt information, the Council should issue a refusal notice that specifies the exception(s) in the EIR it is seeking to rely on and includes an explanation demonstrating why the exception(s) applies. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0237 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld
References: [2011] UKICO FER0369377
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.530800

Foyle Women’s Aid (Undertakings): ICO 13 Aug 2013

An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Foyle Women’s Aid. This follows the temporary loss of a folder belonging to a Criminal Justice Support worker employed by Foyle Women’s Aid that was left in a cafe. The folder contained confidential client information. An apparent lack of effective controls and procedures for taking information out of the office was a contributor to the loss of highly sensitive personal data.
References: [2013] UKICO 2013-28
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.528564

Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Apr 2012

The complainant requested information about employees who had been suspended during a specified period. Betsi Cadwaladr Health Board (‘the Health Board’) provided some information, stating some information was not held and withheld other information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health Board correctly relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA for the non disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner has, however, identified some procedural issues surrounding the Health Board’s handling of the request. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld
References: [2012] UKICO FS50423868
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.529376

East Sussex County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Aug 2011

The complainants made a five part request to East Sussex County Council for information about complaints about potholes on a specified road, the action it had taken to fix them and its policies in this area.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld
References: [2011] UKICO FS50325138
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.530735

Environment Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Mar 2011

The complainant submitted a request to the Environment Agency for the current draft of the proposed Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order it submitted to the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. The Environment Agency initially refused to disclose the draft Order on the grounds that it did not hold it as it was ‘owned’ by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the Environment Agency contacted the complainant and apologised for misunderstanding his request and confirmed that it did in fact hold a copy of the draft Order. However, it said that it intended to withhold it under section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it would be published in the future and the public interest was balanced against disclosure. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Environment Agency disclosed a copy of the draft Order requested by the complainant. The Commissioner noted that the Environment Agency’s 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
References: [2011] UKICO FS50287571
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.530323