User:Alex skene

From FOIwiki
Revision as of 12:01, 1 May 2010 by Alex skene (talk | contribs) (→‎Trying out stuff: semantic mediawiki)
Jump to navigationJump to search

My FOI requests

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/alex_skene


WhatDoTheyKnow stuff


Trying out Semantic Mediawiki stuff

  • I installed the Semantic Bundle for Mediawiki to:
    • host a local non-PDF copy of the ICO & IT decision text & metadata. Google isn't allowed to spider the IT website decisions...
    • be able to automatically re-use this data in other pages (eg the FOIA Exemption pages)
  • Starting with a couple of ICO decisions:
  • FER0220492

TODO:

  • Case Ref: FER0269464
  • Date: 26/04/2010
  • Public Authority: Information Commissioner
  • Summary: The complainant made a request to the Information Commissioner for the information that had been withheld from him in respect of a complaint the Commissioner was investigating. The Commissioner handled the request under Freedom of Information Act 2000 however failed to recognise that the requested information constituted environmental information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Therefore the complainant should have been responded to under this legislation. The Commissioner withheld the requested information from the complainant and this Notice upholds that decision.
  • Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(5)(d) - Complaint Not upheld , EIR 14(3) - Complaint Upheld
  • View PDF of Decision Notice FER0269464 http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0269464.pdf
  • Case Ref: FER0276297
  • Date: 19/04/2010
  • Public Authority: City of Westminster Council
  • Summary: The complainant requested the names and addresses of the City of Westminster Council’s (the council’s) top 1,000 pre-paid bag clients under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The council initially responded by withholding the information under Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. However, following the internal review it responded by stating that it had incorrectly applied the EIR and the relevant legislation was the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). Accordingly, the council considered the request under the Act and withheld the information under section 43(2) stating that its disclosure could prejudice its commercial interests. The Commissioner invited the council to reconsider the request under the EIR but the council maintained that the information requested was not environmental and reiterated its reliance on section 43(2) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the information requested is environmental and therefore exempt under section 39 of the Act. Accordingly, the request should have been dealt with under the EIR. The Commissioner therefore requires the council to reconsider the request under the EIR and to either disclose the information to the complainant in accordance with Regulation 5 or issue a refusal notice under Regulation 14.
  • Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 39 - Complaint Not upheld , EIR 5 - Complaint Upheld , EIR 14(2) - Complaint Upheld , EIR 14(3) - Complaint Upheld
  • View PDF of Decision Notice FER0276297 http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0276297.pdf
  • Case Ref: FS50212107
  • Date: 14/04/2010
  • Public Authority: Financial Services Authority
  • Summary: The complainant requested information from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) on cases where a regulated firm had amended or withdrawn a financial promotion after discussions with or intervention by the FSA. The FSA refused to disclose any of the requested information by virtue of the exemption in section 31 (law enforcement) of the Act and in addition stated the exemption in section 44 (‘prohibitions on disclosure’) applied to some of the requested information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the FSA added that the exemption at section 43 (commercial interests) applied to all of the requested information. The Commissioner has investigated and found that all of the requested information was exempt by virtue of section 44 of the Act. In view of this finding the Commissioner has not considered the application of sections 31 or 43 to the requested information.
  • Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 44 - Complaint Not upheld
  • View PDF of Decision Notice FS50212107 http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50212107.pdf
  • Case Ref: FS50229617
  • Date: 19/04/2010
  • Public Authority: Borough of Poole Council
  • Summary: The complainant requested information concerning the results of a job evaluation process which the Council had undertaken. The Council refused the request citing section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and decided that section 40(2) is not engaged and accordingly has ordered the release of the information. The Commissioner also found that the Council failed to meet the requirements of sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act.
  • Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld
  • View PDF of Decision Notice FS50229617 http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50229617.pdf
  • Case Ref: FS50229762
  • Date: 19/04/2010
  • Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
  • Summary: The complainant requested information that would document that the Information Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) has wide powers under Rule 14(1) of the Information Tribunal (Enforcement Appeals) Rules 2005. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Tribunal does not hold this information and therefore does not require the authority to take any steps. However, he has found that the Tribunal breached sections 1(1)(a), 10(1) and 16(1) in its handling of the request.
  • Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld
  • View PDF of Decision Notice FS50229762 http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50229762.pdf
  • Case Ref: FS50237887
  • Date: 08/04/2010
  • Public Authority: Eastleigh Borough Council
  • Summary: The complainant requested various pieces of information regarding Eastleigh Borough Council’s (the ‘Council’) investigation into working practices at the former employer of a now deceased individual. The Council disclosed some of the requested information, stated that some of the information was not held, and applied section 41(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to other information and refused to confirm or deny whether it was held. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council clarified that it was no longer seeking to rely on section 41(2) of the Act but applied section 41(1) to the withheld information. The Commissioner has determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further information and that the withheld information is exempt under section 41(1) of the Act. The Commissioner identified procedural breaches in the way in which the Council handled the request but does not require the Council to take any steps. The Commissioner also identified that some of the withheld information was likely to be the personal data of the complainant and this matter is being dealt with separately by the Commissioner.
  • Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Not upheld
  • View PDF of Decision Notice FS50237887 http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50237887.pdf
  • Case Ref: FS50241186
  • Date: 26/04/2010
  • Public Authority: St Neots Town Council
  • Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a report held by St Neots Town Council (“the Council”) concerning an incident in November 2007 in St Neots involving the Christmas light display. The Council provided a copy of the report with redactions and it also withheld all the appendices to the report. It stated that it wished to rely on the exemption under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”) and it also referred to section 7(5) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“the DPA”). During its internal review, the Council also cited section 41(1). It did not explain why any of the exemptions applied and it did not address the public interest test relevant to section 43(2). During the Information Commissioner’s (“the Commissioner”) investigation, the Council sought to rely on section 42(1) and section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated and agreed that the withheld information was exempt under section 42(1) because it was covered by Legal Professional Privilege. He found that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information in all the circumstances of the case. He also found that the Council breached section 17(1), 17(1)(b), 17(1)(c) and 17(3)(b).
  • Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
  • View PDF of Decision Notice FS50241186 http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50241186.pdf
  • Case Ref: FS50244267
  • Date: 26/04/2010
  • Public Authority: Richmond Adult Community College
  • Summary: The complainant made a request to Richmond Adult Community College (the “College”) on 26 March 2009 for minutes of meetings for the year 2007. The College refused the request for information as it deemed the request vexatious under section 14 of the Act and furthermore stated that to comply with the request would exceed the cost limit under section 12 of the Act. The College took into account a series of events leading up to the request on 26 March 2009, and deemed this request vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). The Commissioner has considered this request in the context and background in which it was made and has decided that the College correctly applied section 14(1) of the Act.
  • Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld
  • View PDF of Decision Notice FS50244267 http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50244267.pdf
  • Case Ref: FS50249189
  • Date: 19/04/2010
  • Public Authority: Derbyshire County Council
  • Summary: The complainant requested the Council to answer a number of questions and to release information concerning his late mother’s care, which is held in his late mother’s social services records. The Council responded releasing copies of the deceased’s social services records with a number of redactions. It withheld information relating to the complainant’s brother and sisters, as it considered this information to be third party personal data. It also chose to withhold a number of documents under the Act, as it felt these documents were legally professionally privileged. Although no specific exemptions were cited by the Council, the Commissioner has considered whether sections 40(2) and 41(1) of the Act apply to the remaining information. The Commissioner concluded that the remaining information should be withheld under sections 40(2) and 41(1) of the Act.
  • Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Not upheld
  • View PDF of Decision Notice FS50249189 http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50249189.pdf
Retrieved from "https://foiwiki.com/foiwiki/index.php?title=User:Alex_skene&oldid=5915"