FT/EA/2024/0464 - [2025] UKFTT 01131 (GRC)

The Appellant lodged a complaint with the Commissioner in relation to the Decision Notice that is the subject of this appeal on 18 June 2024.

On 01 August 2024, the Commissioner wrote to the Appellant stating that, in order to consider his complaint further, the Commissioner would require clarification from the Appellant as to what information was sought by his request of 05 June 2023 that had not been sought in his subsequent request of 14 September 2023.

On 02 August 2024, the Appellant responded to the Commissioner to indicate that “the difference between the request made on 5^th of June and September 14^th is mainly to do with the dates the requests were made as the information held. On both of these dates is different due to cctv getting deleted every 30 days”. He maintained that the Council had failed to provide him with all of the information that they held at the time of his request on 05 June 2023 and again asserted that they had breached their duty and committed a criminal offence pursuant to regulation 19 EIR.

Having initially declined to consider the Appellant’s complaint regarding the request made on 05 June 2023 as it was believed that it had been addressed in the subsequent Decision Notice reference IC-279542-D4M3, the Commissioner did then accept it for consideration on 10 October 2024 as it had subsequently identified that the scope of the request made on 05 June 2023 was different to that made on 14 September 2023.

The Commissioner wrote to the Council on 10 October 2024 seeking clarification as to the scope of the Appellant’s request, the inspection of the CCTV, and whether the CCTV footage had since been deleted.

The Council responded on 15 October 2024. It stated that recorded CCTV footage from the waste vehicles was automatically overwritten after approximately 28 days, and that the public space CCTV footage was automatically deleted after 30 days. As a consequence, the earliest footage from the requested time period had already been routinely deleted by the time that the Appellant submitted his request on 05 June 2023. The Council stated that, when they responded to the request on 15 June 2023, only the footage from within the last 28/30 days would still have been available.

The Council confirmed that the Appellant had viewed the footage from the waste vehicle on 05 July 2023. All other CCTV footage was routinely deleted in line with its retention period, save for the footage that related directly to the Appellant’s accident and which had been retained for the purposes of his compensation claim.

The Council confirmed that all footage that was saved had been disclosed to the Appellant. It stated that the public space CCTV footage that showed the accident was disclosed following a Subject Access Request and received by the Appellant on 01 July 2023. Additional public space CCTV footage (which did not capture the Appellant) and the waste vehicle footage (which had previously been viewed by the Appellant) had been disclosed pursuant to the request that had been made on 14 September 2023.

On 23 October 2024, the Commissioner wrote to the Appellant in the following terms:

“The Council has confirmed to us that it is not aware of any further held information (including any specific CCTV footage) beyond that which has been disclosed in response to your subject access request (under the Data Protection Act 2018), and the recent decision notice (that we have issued under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004).

We have considered the Council’s position, and the steps the Council has already taken (including the information it has disclosed to your subject access request, and the recent ICO decision notice).

Having done so, there is no evidence available to us that indicates that the Council holds any information in respect of your information request made on 5 June 2023, which has not already been disclosed.

As such, we are satisfied that the Council has complied with the EIR in this case”.

The Appellant responded to the Commissioner on 23 October 2023, stating that he did not accept the Commissioner’s decision as the Council had held relevant information at the time and, insofar as the public space CCTV was concerned, had already informed him that it had been an oversight that it had not been provided to him. In a subsequent email on 24 October 2024 he accepted that, whilst the Council would no longer hold any information as it was deleted every 30 days, they did hold the information at the time of his request and they failed to provide it to him.