Summary: The complainant has requested all information held by UMIP about him and his company. UMIP processed the request under the Data Protection Act (-˜DPA-™) and provided some information and withheld other information. The complainant alleged that there was further relevant recorded information that had not been located by UMIP. The Commissioner-™s decision is that on the balance of probabilities there is no further relevant recorded information held by UMI (which has taken over the responsibilities of UMIP). He also considers that UMIP was correct that all the relevant recorded information it has found was the complainant-™s own personal data and was absolutely exempt by virtue of section 40(1), so did not need to be provided under FOIA. However, the Commissioner did find procedural breaches of sections 10(1), 17(1) and 17(1)(b) because UMIP-™s response was misleading. The Commissioner requires no remedial steps in this case because there is no way to remedy these procedural breaches. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0038 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld