MP Info News from the Information Commissioner's Office

home

The Queen's speech

Down load this for your web site from here

Latest Parliamentary Debates

Down load this for your web site from here

All MPs and Lords
Every Constituency

New legislation and Statutory Instruments

Enter name of committee to find the members

Down load this for your web site from here

Latest Written Ministerial Statements

Down load this for your web site from here

Parliamentary Division Votes

Search petition the PM.

Download this for your web site from here

Petitions to the Prime Minister

What the Government is Saying

Government Papers

UK Polling Reports

Local Government Association News

National Statistics

HM Treasury News

Information Commissioner News

Freedom of Information Request

Consultations

International

UN Food and Agrigulture

UN World Food Programme

World Political News

Parliamentary Licence number: P2006000429

ICO Press Releases

Press releases from the ICO
Copyright 2006 Information Commissioner's Office
Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:14:38 GMT

Hampshire Constabulary must disclose details of cars provided to chief officers

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has ordered the Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary to disclose the make and model of vehicles provided for personal use to two Assistant Chief Constables. This follows a request under the Freedom of Information Act for details about the cars provided to Chief Police Officers for their personal use. The public authority confirmed that two Assistant Chief Constables are provided with vehicles for their own use.
Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:00:45 GMT

ICO prosecutes Harrow accountant

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) yesterday successfully prosecuted a Middlesex accountant for offences under the Data Protection Act. Mr Satish Lakhani of Lake & Co Accountants based in Harrow, was fined £300 and ordered to pay costs of £483.40, plus a victims’ surcharge of £15 at Harrow Magistrates Court. Mr Lakhani must pay a total of £798.40 in fines and costs.
Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:00:32 GMT

ICO prosecutes Harrow accountant

Hampshire Constabulary must disclose details of cars provided to chief officers

The complainant requested details of the make and model of any vehicles provided to the chief officers within the public authority and that are put to personal use. The public authority confirmed that two Assistant Chief Constables are provided with vehicles that are put to personal use. The public authority withheld the details of the make and model of these vehicles, relying upon sections 31(1)(a), (b), and (c) (law enforcement) and 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety). The Commissioner finds that these exemptions are not engaged and the public authority is required to disclose the information withheld. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with section 10(1) in failing to disclose information about the cost incurred through the provision of vehicles to chief officers within 20 working days of receipt of the request and section 17(1)(b) in failing to cite the relevant subsections of the exemptions relied upon.
Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:37:42 GMT

ICO orders the release of confidential papers on the Accession States Worker Registration Scheme

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has ordered the release of Cabinet Office papers prepared for a Ministerial Working Group meeting in October 2005 which took the decision to continue the Accession States Worker Registration Scheme (WRS). The ICO has ruled that releasing the information under the Freedom of Information Act would improve public understanding of the controversial decision.
Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:25:34 GMT

ICO Decision Notices

Decision notice
Copyright 2006 Information Commissioner's Office
Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:14:39 GMT

FS50103726

FS50163359

The complainant made a number of information requests in three separate letters to the public authority. The public authority deemed the requests vexatious in accordance with section 14 of the Act. The Commissioner considered the requests in the context and background in which they were made and has upheld the public authority’s refusal to comply with the requests by virtue of section 14 of the Act.
Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:50:46 GMT

FS50106712

On 7 March 2005 the complainant requested a copy of information from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) regarding his investment in Fiox Limited. This information would originally have been held by the FSA’s predecessor, Investment Management Regulatory Organisation (IMRO). The FSA refused the request, applying the exemptions under sections 43(2) and 44, and subsequently sections 40(2), 21 and 31(1) (g). After investigation, the Commissioner considers that the FSA correctly applied the exemptions under sections 21, 40(2) and 44. In relation to sections 31(1) (g) and 43(2), the Commissioner has decided that the FSA was incorrect to apply these exemptions and orders the FSA to disclose to the complainant any information requested which was withheld on the basis of them. Finally the Commissioner finds that the FSA was in breach of section 17 of the Act in failing to state in its refusal notice and on internal review all the exemptions it subsequently applied.
Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:31:05 GMT

FS50103726

The complainant asked the BBC for details of the total cost of overseas trips made by BBC Wales staff during the first 10 months of 2005. In addition he requested a breakdown of these costs. The BBC refused to provide this information stating that it was not a public authority in relation to the complainant’s request because the requested information was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature within the meaning set out in Schedule 1, Part VI of the Freedom of Information Act (“Schedule 1”). As an alternative argument the BBC has applied the exemption under section 12 of the Act (cost limit) to withhold the information.
Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:22:32 GMT

FS50104809

The complainant made a successful information request to MOD under the Act. Subsequently he asked to see copies of the documentation created during the consideration of that request. MOD, although it did agree to provide the complainant with a summary setting out the main stages of the process it had gone through, refused to provide the information sought and cited section 36 of the Act. The Commissioner took the view that, apart from a small amount of information and the names of the staff who had dealt with the matter, section 36 had not been applied correctly and that the information should be released.
Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:01:28 GMT

FS50147637

The complainant requested information from the FSA about Barclays Private Bank’s involvement with Columbian drugs money. The FSA refused to disclose the information under sections 31, 40, 43 and 44 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated and found the exemptions at sections 21, 40 and 44 of the Act are engaged. However, the Commissioner found that the exemption and sections 31 and 43 are not. The Commissioner requires the FSA to disclose the information withheld under sections 31 and 43 within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:52:38 GMT

FS50179353

The complainant wrote to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to request the names and job titles of the UK and Russian diplomats who were expelled as a result of the diplomatic dispute that followed the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006. The public authority refused to disclose the information relying on the exemption in section 40 of the Act (personal information). The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and has found that the requested information constitutes personal data and its disclosure would breach the first data protection principle which requires that personal data be processed fairly and lawfully. The Commissioner has decided that the public authority dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with the Act and requires no steps to be taken.
Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:47:03 GMT

FS50168774

The complainant, a firm of accountants, asked HMRC to provide various pieces of internal correspondence which related to the tax affairs of one of its clients. HMRC initially refused to disclose any information on the basis of the exemption contained at section 31(1)(d) of the Act. HMRC subsequently provided the complainant with copies of the correspondence but with redactions made on the basis of 31(1)(d). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation HMRC then withdrew its reliance on section 31(1)(d) and argued that the redacted information was exempt on the basis of section 44(1)(a) of the Act because of the prohibition on disclosure provided by the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. The Commissioner has concluded that the redacted information is exempt on the basis of section 44(1)(a) but has also found that HMRC committed a number of procedural breaches in handling this request.
Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:25:18 GMT

FS50126011

The complainant wrote to the Cabinet Office to request a copy of the Cabinet Office papers prepared for a meeting of the Asylum and Migration Working Group meeting in October 2005 which took the decision to continue the Accession States Worker Registration Scheme. The Cabinet Office informed the complainant that the requested information is held but that it is exempt from disclosure under section 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act (Formulation or development of government policy and Ministerial communications). The Cabinet Office also stated that it had concluded that the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemptions. The Commissioner accepts that the information withheld from the complainant engages the specified exemptions but has concluded that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner therefore requires the Cabinet Office to provide the withheld information to the complainant.
Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:20:18 GMT

FS50113735

The complainant requested information about inquiries and investigations carried about by a Convenor. The public authority refused to disclose the information relying upon the sections 21, 36, 40 and 41 exemptions to various parts of the request. It also claimed that it did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner decided that all the information that it did hold was exempt from disclosure under section 41 of the Act. However he also decided that the public authority incorrectly applied section 21 of the Act.
Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:50:42 GMT

August 2008

Decision notice
Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:52:36 GMT

FS50199479

The complainant requested information relating to the compensation payments made to prisoners and former prisoners. The public authority replied that section 43 (commercial interests) was engaged and that it would carry out a public interest determination within a target timeframe. The Commissioner finds that section 17(1)(c) was breached at this point as the public authority failed to inform the complainant why the exemption was engaged. The timeframe was readjusted on two separate occasions before the complainant complained to the Commissioner. It was also extended a further time after the Commissioner set a deadline. The Commissioner finds a delay of over six months in carrying out a public interest determination to be in breach of section 17(3). The Commissioner has also found the public authority in breach of section 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) of the Act. The public authority is required to issue a notice explaining why section 43 is engaged in relation to each part of the request and where it believes the balance of the public interest lies. If the public authority concludes that the balance of the public interest favours disclosing the information or no longer considers the exemption to apply, the information should be provided to the complainant.
Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:18:05 GMT

FS50198451

The complainant requested information relating to the items confiscated from prisoners at HMP Risley and HMP YOI Thorn Cross. The public authority replied that section 31(1)(f) (maintenance of security and good order in prisons) was engaged and that it would carry out a public interest determination within a target timeframe. The Commissioner finds that section 17(1)(c) was breached at this point as the public authority failed to inform the complainant why the exemption was engaged. The timeframe was readjusted on at least three separate occasions before the complainant complained to the Commissioner. The Commissioner finds a delay of over eight months in carrying out a public interest determination to be in breach of section 17(3). The Commissioner also found the public authority in breach of section 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and section 10(1). The public authority is required to issue a notice explaining why section 31(1)(f) is engaged and where it believes the balance of the public interest lies. If the public authority concludes that the balance of the public interest favours disclosing the information or no longer considers the exemption to apply, the information should be provided to the complainant.
Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:13:30 GMT

FS50196199

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the West Hertfordshire NHS Hospitals Trust (the “Trust”) for information relating to a document called “Comparison of Centralising Acute Services at Hemel Hempstead General Hospital or Watford General Hospital”. The Trust failed to respond to this request despite repeated reminders to do so. The Commissioner has therefore decided that the Trust has failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) and (b) of the Act and must now do so within 35 days of the date of the notice. Furthermore the Commissioner has decided that the Trust failed to comply with the time for compliance under section 10(1) of the Act.
Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:59:44 GMT

FS50195955

The complainant requested information from the public authority that related to communications that passed between the Ministry of Justice, the Probation service and others about the preparation of the answer to a Parliamentary question asked by the complainant’s MP on his behalf. The public authority extended the deadline for responding on four occasions. In five months prior to the involvement of the Commissioner no substantive response to the request was provided. The Commissioner gave the public authority a final opportunity to provide a substantive response to the request and heard nothing. The Commissioner has found that the public authority has breached section 10 as it has taken considerably more than twenty working days to comply with section 1(1) of the Act. The Commissioner also found the public authority in breach of section 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to either provide the information or issue a valid refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the Act within 35 days of the date of this notice.
Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:55:15 GMT

FS50179206

The complainant made a request for information for some documents that were referred to in a letter from the public authority to the Inland Revenue on 2 August 1977. The public authority replied that it did not hold these documents. The public authority in its internal review carried out a further search and came to the same conclusion. However it later located a small amount of information that was within the scope of the request which it provided to the complainant after its internal review. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority breached section 1(1)(a) in denying that it held relevant information. It also breached section 10(1) in failing to comply with section 1 within twenty working days of the request and section 1(1)(b) in failing to provide the relevant material by the completion of the internal review. He has concluded that on a balance of probabilities the public authority does not hold any further information relevant to the request.
Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:45:28 GMT

FS50175732

The complainant requested information relating to the destruction of his bankruptcy case file. The public authority provided some information but explained that the remaining information would have been held with the destroyed case file and was therefore not held. The Commissioner has investigated and finds that the majority of the information is not held. However the Commissioner did find that part of the information is held and should have been disclosed. The public authority has now disclosed this information to the complainant. The Commissioner finds that in failing to disclose this information within twenty workings days from receipt of the request the public authority breached the requirements of section 10 and that in failing to provide the relevant information by completion of the internal review also breached section 1(1)(b) of the Act.
Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:41:55 GMT

FS50165511

The complainant submitted six requests to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for information about the benefits payable to those in polygamous marriages, including information used for the preparation of parliamentary questions on the this subject. The DWP provided some information in response to these requests but withheld further documents on the basis of sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(d), 36(2)(b), 36(2)(c) and 42(1). Having reviewed the withheld information, the Commissioner accepts that this information falls within the scope of the various exemptions cited by the DWP. The Commissioner accepts that for the application of all of these exemptions the public interest favours withholding the requested information. The only exception is a small piece of information which falls within the scope of section 35(1)(a) for which the Commissioner has concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:48:17 GMT

FS50156040

The complainant made a request to the Student Loans Company Ltd (the “SLC”) for a copy of the ‘Class Training Manual’. The SLC refused to disclose the manual, stating that it believed that this information constituted a trade secret and was therefore exempt from disclosure under section 43(1). After investigating this complaint the Commissioner decided that the manual did not constitute a trade secret. Therefore the exemption is not engaged, and the information should be disclosed. The Commissioner also decided that the SLC did not meet the requirements of section 17(1)(b). The Commissioner therefore found that the SLC had acted in breach of section 1(1)(b) of the Act. He also found that it had acted in breach of section 17(1)(b) and section 10 of the Act.
Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:41:03 GMT

FS50150711

The complainant asked the public authority for information relating to draft regulations referred by the public authority to the Social Security Advisory Committee, and to the Committee’s consequent advice and reports to the public authority. The public authority provided information about the draft regulations, and required an extension of time to consider the public interest test regarding the advice and reports, after which it concluded that that information was exempt under section 36(2)(b) and (c). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority decided that the balance of the public interest now favoured disclosure of the remaining information. However, the Commissioner decided that the public authority failed to comply with its duty to issue the refusal notice within the time limit set out in section 10(1), which constitutes a breach of section 17(1) of the Act, and also extended the time to consider the public interest test unreasonably, a breach of section 17(3).
Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:12:55 GMT

FS50150272

The complainant asked the public authority for information about when it and Treasury ministers had first become aware of identity fraud in the Tax Credit system, and for any estimates of suspected identity fraud cases which it had made in 2005. The public authority noted that some of the information was already reasonably accessible and therefore exempt under section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’), while the rest was exempt under section 31(1)(a), although it provided a generalised explanation of its anti-fraud measures. After the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority agreed that the greater part of the withheld information should have been released, its failure to do so in response to the request constituting a breach of section 10(1) of the Act and section 1(1)(b). The Commissioner decided that some further information withheld under section 31(1)(a) should also be disclosed. Further, he decided that information which the public authority considered not to fall within the request did in fact do. In respect of this information section 31(1)(a) is not engaged and therefore the failure to disclose it constituted a breach of section 1(1)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner also decided that the public authority had failed to comply with its duty to issue the refusal notices within the time limit set out in section 10(1) of the Act, which constitutes a breach of section 17(1) of the Act. Further the refusal notice of 10 April 2006 failed to refer to the section 21 exemption explicitly, a breach of section 17(1)(b) of the Act. Finally in failing to confirm and deny that it held information covered by the second part of the first request and to provide it to the complainant HMRC breached section 1(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:51:59 GMT

FS50141374

The complainant requested the Net Present Value (“NPV”) figures offered by the unsuccessful bidders for the South Western rail franchise. This request was made to the Department for Transport (the “DfT”). The DfT confirmed that it held this information, but refused to disclose it, stating that it believed that this information was exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of the Act. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that section 43(2) was not engaged. Therefore he found that the DfT had acted in breach of section 1(1)(b) of the Act. He also found that it had acted in breach of section 17(1)(b) and (c) of the Act by seeking to rely upon an exemption not previously cited in its refusal notice. He also found that the DfT had breached section 10 of the Act. The Commissioner requires that the withheld information should be disclosed.
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:48:19 GMT

FS50122432

The complainant made a request to the Department of Health (the “DoH”) regarding the release of details of abortion statistics for 2003, where those abortions had been carried out under ‘ground (e)’. This request was made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). Some information had already been published by the DoH in the annual abortion statistics for England and Wales. However, it suppressed statistics where the number of occurrences was less than 10, instead marking it as “…”. The DoH refused to disclose this information, and cited section 36 of the Act. After carrying out an internal review the DoH upheld the use of section 36, and also cited sections 40 and 44, as it believed that the disclosure of this information would be in breach of the Abortion Regulations 1991. During the course of the investigation the DoH informed the Commissioner that it was only relying upon sections 40 and 44 to withhold the information in question. After considering the circumstances of the case the Commissioner decided that the requested information was not personal data, and that therefore section 40 was not engaged. He also decided that the disclosure of the withheld information would not be in breach of the Abortion Regulations 1991, and therefore section 44 was not engaged. Therefore he requires that the withheld information be released. Additionally the Commissioner also decided that the DoH had acted in breach of section 17(1), as it had taken longer than 20 working days to issue a refusal notice.
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:44:29 GMT

FS50088745

On 11 May 2005 the complainant wrote to the Cabinet Office to request disclosure of the minutes and agendas of all meetings between the then Prime Minister and his former strategy adviser Lord Birt dating from 1 January 2005 and a schedule of any such documents held. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose this information and upheld its decision upon internal review placing reliance upon the exemptions under sections 35 and 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Formulation of Government Policy and Prejudice to Effective Conduct of Public Affairs). Upon considering a complaint dated 9 September 2005 the Commissioner upheld the decision of the Cabinet Office on the basis of the exemptions cited under sections 35 and 36 of the Act.
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:34:37 GMT

FS50077719

The complainant asked the public authority for records of meetings between Tony Blair and other world leaders in the Azores and Crawford, Texas in 2003. The public authority claimed that a substantial amount of information about the meetings was already in the public domain, and withheld the requested information as exempt under sections 27(1)(a), 27(2) and 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner decided that the information was exempt under section 27 and that the public interest test in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:27:45 GMT

FER0178729

The complainant requested a copy of a draft report produced by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) which focused on storage methods for radioactive waste. (The final version of this report had already been placed in the public domain.) The NDA argued that the draft version was exempt by virtue of the exceptions contained at regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations and that for both exceptions the public interest favoured withholding this information. The Commissioner has concluded that the draft report does not fall within the scope of 12(4)(d). However he has also decided that the draft report does fall within the scope of 12(4)(e) and is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:03:14 GMT

FER0145666

The complainant requested information contained in a report by the Business Principles Unit of the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) of its assessment of the case for ECGD to support a United Kingdom interest in a project to build a pipeline to transport oil from Baku to Ceyhan via Tbilisi. He also requested the minutes of an ECGD meeting, held to review the report, and related correspondence along with a list of any correspondence and related information being withheld from him. He also complained to the Commissioner of excessive delay by ECGD. ECGD disclosed parts of the report and some related documentation but withheld parts of the report, the minutes and some correspondence, citing what it saw as relevant sections of the Act and the exceptions contained in Regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(a), and 12(5)(e) of The Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner decided that the Regulations applied to all of the information and that ECGD must disclose in full both the report and the relevant sections of the minutes. On procedural matters, he found that ECGD breached Regulations 5, 7 and 14. Exceptions breached were those specified under Regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(a). The Commissioner severely criticised ECGD’s excessive delay in responding to the request.
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:57:14 GMT

FER0085500

The complainant requested a report into an application for a grant towards a proposed biomass generation plant. This was initially refused under sections 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43 (commercial interests) of the Act. The public authority was later advised by the Commissioner that the information withheld fell within the definition of environmental information in the Regulations and that it should consider what exceptions from the EIR may apply. The public authority cited Regulations 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings of public authorities provided by law), (e) (commercial confidentiality) and (g) (environmental protection). The Commissioner finds that the information is on emissions and, therefore, Regulation 12(9) applies. As Regulation 12(9) provides that information on emissions cannot be subject to any of the exceptions provided in Regulations 12(5)(d) to (g), the Commissioner finds that the exceptions cited by the public authority are not engaged. The public authority is required to disclose to the complainant the information withheld.
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:49:32 GMT

FS50104541

The complainant asked the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to tell him the names of those who had died as a result of incidents in the workplace which were reported to it. HSE refused, citing the section 44 exemption under the Act. HSE referred to: the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974; the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR); and, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with the Human Rights Act 1998. In later discussions with the Commissioner, HSE additionally relied on the section 21 and section 41 exemptions. The Commissioner found that HSE had not complied with sections 10 and 17 of the Act. He decided that the section 21, 41 and 44 exemptions were not engaged and that HSE should have provided to the complainant the information requested. The Commissioner invited HSE to respond favourably to such requests in the future but to provide the information not more frequently than at monthly intervals.
Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:51:44 GMT

FS50129143

The complainant asked the public authority for: a report following an investigation into allegations about a proposed amnesty to United Kingdom tobacco producers; and information about the investigator. The public authority provided information about the investigator but withheld the report, citing sections 31, 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i), 41 and 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). During the Commissioner’s investigation it also identified some information as falling within section 21 of the Act. The Commissioner decided that the public authority had not complied with its obligations under section 1(1) by failing to communicate to the complainant information to which he was entitled, on the mistaken basis that it was exempt from disclosure under sections 31, 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i), 41 and 44 of the Act. It also acted in breach of section 21 of the Act in failing to advise the complainant that some of the information was already in the public domain. Furthermore, in only disclosing some information to the complainant after he had made a complaint to the Commissioner, the public authority did not comply within the time limit in section 10(1) of the Act, a breach of sections 1(1)(b) and 17(1). The Commissioner required the public authority to disclose the information which it had improperly withheld.
Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:35:33 GMT

ICO Press Releases

Hampshire Constabulary must disclose details of cars provided to chief officers

ICO prosecutes Harrow accountant

ICO prosecutes Harrow accountant

Hampshire Constabulary must disclose details of cars provided to chief officers

ICO orders the release of confidential papers on the Accession States Worker Registration Scheme

NDA right to withhold draft papers on radioactive waste storage methods

ICO statement on Google Streetview

Names of work-related deaths to be released

ICO urges public authorities to publish meeting minutes under FOI

ICO prosecutes London accountant

Know your rights when accessing examination records

Criminal records ruling: Old convictions data to be deleted

“…a step too far”

A communications database would be ‘a step too far’

Thomas/Walport Data sharing Review Published

ICO orders the BBC to disclose annual staff costs for Eastenders

UK privacy watchdog spearheads debate on the future of European privacy law

Get recognition for excellence in data protection

ICO takes action against double-glazing cold calls

ICO statement on the disclosure of MPs’ home addresses

ICO orders council to release contract with financial details

Snap away on sports day, says ICO

HMRC and MOD data security breaches

ICO orders release of information relating to the second runway at Stansted

Company convicted of obtaining BT customer information unlawfully

South Wales authorities right not to disclose school exclusions

ICO appoints new Assistant Commissioner for Northern Ireland

ICO statement on Home Affairs Committee

ICO issues new guidance on transfer of employee information

ICO calls time on unnecessary secrecy

ICO Decision Notices

FS50103726

FS50163359

FS50106712

FS50103726

FS50104809

FS50147637

FS50179353

FS50168774

FS50126011

FS50113735

August 2008

FS50199479

FS50198451

FS50196199

FS50195955

FS50179206

FS50175732

FS50165511

FS50156040

FS50150711

FS50150272

FS50141374

FS50122432

FS50088745

FS50077719

FER0178729

FER0145666

FER0085500

FS50104541

FS50129143