Key Facts
- •Richard Fowler (Appellant) requested information from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •The request was unclear regarding what specific recorded information was sought.
- •The EHRC attempted to clarify the request with Fowler.
- •The Information Commissioner (ICO) issued a Decision Notice (DN) stating the EHRC did not hold the information requested.
- •Fowler appealed the DN to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber).
Legal Principles
FOIA requires public authorities to confirm or deny whether they hold information requested and to communicate that information if held.
FOIA, section 1
Public authorities have a duty to provide reasonable advice and assistance to those seeking information.
FOIA, section 16
FOIA defines 'information' as information recorded in any form.
FOIA, section 84
Appeals against ICO Decision Notices are determined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal can allow the appeal if the notice is not in accordance with the law or if the Commissioner's discretion was wrongly exercised.
FOIA, section 58
The normal civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) applies in determining whether information is held.
Preston v ICO and Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2022] UKUT 344 and Bromley v IC and Environment Agency [2007] UKIT EA_2006_0072
The scope of a FOIA request is determined by an objective reading of the request itself in light of relevant background facts.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport v IC [2010] UKFTT EA_2009_0038
FOIA does not oblige authorities to modify their record-keeping or produce additional information unless held in recorded form.
ICO's response, paragraphs 29-31
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that Fowler's request did not seek recorded information as defined by FOIA but rather an explanation. The EHRC's attempt to clarify the request and their actions fulfilled their obligations under Section 16. The ICO's decision was consistent with the law.