Darbari Rachhpaul Singh Bedi v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 986 (GRC)
Stephen Masterman v The Information Commissioner
9 April 2024
[2024] UKFTT 289 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone requested details of a house's licence to be rented out to many people. The government initially said no because of privacy. A court decided the public's right to know outweighed privacy concerns because the law requires some information to be made public anyway.
Key Facts
- •Stephen Masterman requested HMO licence conditions from Brighton & Hove City Council.
- •The Council refused disclosure citing FOIA s.40(2) (third-party personal information).
- •The Information Commissioner upheld the Council's refusal.
- •Masterman appealed to the First-tier Tribunal.
- •The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the Commissioner erred in applying FOIA instead of EIR and misjudged the balance of public and private interests.
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) s.1(1): General right of access to information held by public authorities.
FOIA
FOIA s.2(2): Effect of exemptions; public interest balancing test.
FOIA
FOIA s.40: Exemption for personal information.
FOIA
Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) Reg 2: Definition of 'environmental information'.
EIR
EIR Reg 12: Exceptions to the duty to disclose environmental information; presumption in favour of disclosure.
EIR
EIR Reg 13: Exemption for third-party personal data; compliance with data protection principles.
EIR
Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) s.3(2): Definition of 'personal data'.
DPA
UK GDPR Article 5(1)(a): Lawful, fair, and transparent processing of personal data.
UK GDPR
UK GDPR Article 6(1)(f): Processing necessary for legitimate interests; balancing test.
UK GDPR
Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions) (England) Regulations 2006 (Reg 11): Requirement to publish a summary of HMO licence conditions.
2006 Regulations
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Commissioner wrongly applied FOIA instead of EIR and misjudged the balance of public and private interests in disclosing the HMO licence conditions. The Tribunal found a strong public interest in disclosure, outweighing the landlord's privacy concerns given the statutory requirement for publication of a summary of conditions.