Woodhouse vs The Information Commissioner

This case concerned an appeal by Gerry Woodhouse against the Information Commissioner's decision to withhold information requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), citing Section 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means).

TLDR:

• Gerry Woodhouse requested information from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) about decision notices issued to parish councils.
• The ICO refused, citing Section 21 FOIA, as the information was accessible via their website.
• Woodhouse appealed, arguing the information was not reasonably accessible to him due to his limited technical skills.
• The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the ICO's decision.

The appellant, Gerry Woodhouse, requested from the ICO a list of UK parish councils that had received 20 or more ICO Decision Notices for FOIA cases since January 1, 2014, ideally in an MS Excel format. The ICO confirmed it held the information but refused to disclose it, relying on the exemption in Section 21 FOIA, which states that information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means is exempt from disclosure.

Woodhouse requested an internal review of the ICO's decision, arguing that the information, although technically accessible, was not reasonably accessible to him due to the time and effort required to collate it manually. The ICO maintained its position, issuing a formal decision notice on November 23, 2023.

Woodhouse appealed to the First-tier Tribunal, arguing that the ICO's decision was wrong in law. He contended that, due to his limited technical skills and personal circumstances, the information was not reasonably accessible to him. He also argued that the information was in the public interest, citing governance issues in his local parish council.

The Tribunal considered the relevant facts and legal principles. It found that the ICO had provided adequate instructions to Woodhouse on how to access the information via its website and that the information was reasonably accessible to him. The Tribunal noted that the ICO had no obligation to provide the information in a specific format or to create new information.

The Tribunal concluded that the ICO was entitled to rely on Section 21 FOIA to refuse Woodhouse's request. It found no error of law in the ICO's decision and dismissed the appeal.

This case highlights the importance of understanding the scope of FOIA exemptions and the obligations of public authorities in providing information. It also underscores the need for applicants to demonstrate specific circumstances that render information not reasonably accessible to them.