Darbari Rachhpaul Singh Bedi v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 986 (GRC)
Shaun Poore v Information Commissioner
10 February 2023
[2023] UKFTT 114 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked how many people lived in a house due to anti-social behavior. The council and the Information Commissioner said no, because that number could be used to figure out who lives there, even if the person asking said they already knew. The court agreed that the information was private and there were other ways to deal with the problem, so they didn't have to share it.
Key Facts
- •Shaun Poore (Appellant) requested information from Portsmouth City Council about the number of people living at a specific address.
- •The Council refused the request, citing section 40(2) FOIA (third party personal data).
- •The Information Commissioner (Respondent) upheld the Council's refusal.
- •Poore appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
- •Poore's concern stemmed from suspected anti-social behavior and potential HMO status of the property.
- •The FTT considered whether the requested information constituted personal data and whether disclosure was justified under a three-part test (legitimate interest, necessity, and balancing).
Legal Principles
Definition of personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018
Data Protection Act 2018, Section 3(2)
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Section 40(2)
Freedom of Information Act 2000
UK GDPR, Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1)(f)
UK GDPR
'Motivated intruder' test for identifying personal data
NHS Business Services v Information Commissioner and Spivack [2021] UKUT 192 (AAC), Information Commissioner v Miller [2018] UKUT 220 (AAC), Craigdale Housing Association v The Scottish Information Commissioner [2010] CSIH 43
Three-part test for balancing legitimate interests against data protection rights (legitimate interest, necessity, balancing)
South Lanarkshire Council v Scottish IC [2013] UKSC 55
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed
The FTT found the requested information to be personal data, even though their reasoning differed from the Commissioner's. They concluded that disclosure was not necessary to achieve the appellant's legitimate aims, as alternative avenues existed to address the anti-social behavior and HMO concerns. The occupants' right to privacy outweighed the appellant's interest in disclosure.