BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Information Commissioner's Office |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> Salford City Council (Local government (City council)) [2015] UKICO FS50565225 (2 November 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2015/FS50565225.html Cite as: [2015] UKICO FS50565225 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
2 November 2015, Local government (City council)
The complainant requested information about the sale of public open space land and the proposed refurbishment and extension to Walkden Cricket Club. Salford City Council (the ‘Council’) failed to provide a response to either request until six months after receipt. Having initially decided to withhold all the information in scope of the request, the Council then revised its position and made a number of disclosures, with some of the information redacted under regulations 12(4)(e), internal communications, 12(5)(b), course of justice, 12(5)(e), commercial confidentiality, 12(5)(f), adverse effect on the person who provided the information, and 13(2), personal data. During the investigation, the Council discovered additional information in scope of the request which it subsequently disclosed to the complainant, with redactions, as set out in paragraphs 19 and 20 of this notice. It also withheld some information in its entirety relying on the above exceptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exceptions in regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b) and 13(2) are only engaged in relation to some of the withheld information. He also finds that regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) are not engaged in relation to any of the withheld information. The Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide the requested information within 20 working days, and regulation 14(2) by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days. It also breached regulation 11 by failing to carry out an internal review until requested to do so by the Commissioner. The Commissioner requires the public authority to comply with the order to issue a fresh response/disclose the information in relation to the documents in Batches 1, 2, 3 and 4 listed in Annex A of this notice. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 5(2): Upheld EIR 11: Upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Not upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Upheld EIR 12(5)(f): Upheld EIR 13(2): Upheld
