18 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from West Berkshire Council (“the Council”) various information relating to planning application 18/02975/FUL. The Council disclosed some information, but also withheld some information under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR (internal communications) and regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR (confidentiality of proceedings). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold further information that fell within the scope of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council did not comply with its obligations under regulation 5(2) of the EIR by not responding to the request within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council were entitled to withhold some, but not all, of the requested information under regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose to the complainant the information previously withhe
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View West Berkshire Council
17 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about penalty charge notices for late payment of the Dartford crossing charge. Highways England’s response indicated that it did not hold some of the requested information. It has subsequently confirmed that its primary position is that complying with parts of the request would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Highways England is not obliged to comply with parts 1 to 3 of the complainant’s request as the cost of doing so would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner finds that no breach of section 16(1) occurred (advice and assistance). The Commissioner does not require Highways England to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View National Highways
17 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the closed extract listed as “PREM 19/81/1” held by The National Archives (TNA). The withheld information consists of six sentences. TNA withheld two sentences under section 27 and withheld the remaining four sentences under section 40(2) and section 41(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA is entitled to rely on section 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) of the FOIA to withhold two sentences of the withheld information and in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. She also found that the TNA is entitled to withhold the remaining four sentences under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has not gone on to consider the application of section 41(1) of the FOIA in relation to those four sentences. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10 of the FOIA, as TNA failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time limits.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40(2)
View The National Archives
17 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (the trust) to disclose information relating to the gynaecological procedures/operations carried out by a particular consultant. Initially the trust advised that the requested information was not held and some was exempt under section 40 of the FOIA. At the internal review stage it maintained this position but also claimed a late reliance on section 12 of the FOIA for some elements of the request. With regards to the information that is not held, the Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the recorded information is not held. In terms of the trust’s application of section 12 and 40 of the FOIA, the Commissioner is satisfied that these sections apply to the respective elements of the complainant’s request. However, the Commissioner has found the trust in breach of sections 1, 10 and 16 of the FOIA. For section 16 of the FOIA, the Commissioner requires the trust to provide the complainant wit
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 40
View Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
17 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for information relating to the decision to exclude partners from antenatal ultrasound scans. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) has not provided a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to provide the complainant with a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
17 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about surveillance he alleges the Department for Work and Pensions carried out on him. The DWP confirmed that it held relevant information, but relied on section 40(1) of the FOIA to withhold it because the information would be his own personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that any information that the DWP held would be the complainant’s own personal data. However, she considers that, because the information would have been personal data, the DWP should have relied on section 40(5A) of the FOIA and should not have confirmed or denied holding information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0031 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(5)(a)
View Department for Work and Pensions
17 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to photos of farmed salmon and salmon farms from the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), an executive agency sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government. APHA confirmed that it does not hold any photographs taken during inspections and therefore no correspondence relating to those photos was held either. APHA confirmed it does hold photos received as part of welfare allegations/complaints from third parties however it withheld this information under section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(a), section 40(2) and section 43 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that APHA has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(a) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Animal and Plant Health Agency
17 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) regarding prisoners who have attempted to smuggle drugs into prisons. The NIPS refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 31 of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NIPS has incorrectly applied section 31 of the FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the requested information to the complainant. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0028 consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Northern Ireland Prison Service
16 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the use of Zoom video-conferencing software at a particular Cabinet Office meeting. The Cabinet Office interpreted the request to be for information regarding the use of Zoom at all meetings and refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA (costs of compliance). The complainant argued that this broad interpretation of the request was incorrect and that the Cabinet Office had therefore incorrectly refused it. The Commissioner’s decision is that there is only one objective reading of the request and that the Cabinet Office did not interpret the request in line with this objective reading. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to issue a fresh response to the request based on the correct objective reading.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
16 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Education (DfE) about the National Careers Service’s “Discover your skills and careers” and “Skills health check” assessment tools. The DfE had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DfE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. The DfE must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Education
16 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about infection control precautions taken in relation to on-street parking meters. The London Borough of Harrow had failed to respond to the request at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Harrow Council
16 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information with regards to two reports relating to the impacts of Covid 19 on people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. The Cabinet Office refused the request relying on section 12 of the FOIA as it considered it would be over the cost limit to respond. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has breached section 16(1) of the FOIA as the request did not have a single objective reading, but the Cabinet Office did not seek clarification of the request under section 1(3) of the FOIA before determining whether section 12 of the FOIA was engaged. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with advice and assistance by requesting clarification of the request. The Cabinet Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fa
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Cabinet Office
16 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to allegations made against the Chief Executive of the ‘Welcome to Yorkshire’ organisation. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 14(1) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DCMS has incorrectly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the complainant which is not based on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
15 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding a planning application and a particular Councillor’s involvement in planning matters. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cornwall Council (the Council) failed to respond to two valid information requests within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. As the Council has now responded to the requests, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Cornwall Council
15 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding Parking machines. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire County Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire County Council breached sections 1 (general right of access) and 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA, by failing to disclose to the complainant information to which he is entitled within 20 working days of his request. The Commissioner requires the County Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Nottinghamshire County Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Nottinghamshire County Council
15 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested documents from Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) relating to the merger of Luton and Dunstable University Hospital and Bedford Hospital and also for information regarding the recent recruitment for two general manager positions within the Trust. The Trust had failed to provide a response to either request by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust failed to respond to the requests within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to both requests. The Trust must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Informati
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
15 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked for email correspondence which concerns parking permits, which passed between Brighton and Hove City Council and the Information Commissioner’s Office between I October 2019 and 14 February 2020. The Council repeatedly failed to respond to the complainant’s request until it finally disclosed all of the information it holds which falls within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Council’s disclosures were not made via its FOI Disclosure Log. The Commissioner has decided that the information which the complainant has asked for is comprised of his own personal data. As such, the Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 17(1) of the FOIA by failing to give the complainant a refusal notice which cited section 40(1) of the Act and an explanation of why that exemption applies. No such refusal notice was given within the twenty working days compliance period provided by section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner has therefore decided that
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View Brighton and Hove City Council
15 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London North Eastern Railway (LNER) about its relationship with the Rail Ombudsman. LNER had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that LNER failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires LNER to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. LNER must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London North Western Railways
15 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) information regarding a Private Document Pack from a Business Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. The Council disclosed a redacted version of the information from which it withheld some content under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (commercial confidentiality). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner also finds that in not responding to the complainant’s initial request or internal review request within the statutory timeframe, the Council has breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose to the complainant the information withheld under regulation 12(5)(e). The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Co
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Wirral Council
14 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office relating to the creation of a video posted on the Home Office’s official Twitter account. By the date of this notice, the Home Office had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Having confirmed that information is held within the scope of the request, either disclose the requested information or, issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA. The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to se
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Home Office
14 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding complaints to the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Berwick-upon-Tweed Town Council has reasonably estimated that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit and was therefore entitled to rely upon section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
14 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of terms of reference and reports of investigations which the Welsh Language Commissioner (‘the WLC’) had undertaken. The WLC initially applied section 12 of the FOIA to the request on the basis that compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the WLC disclosed some information relevant to the request and maintained that the remaining information was exempt under sections 31, 44(1) and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the WLC has correctly applied sections 31 and 44 and 40(2) to the information it has continued to withhold from the terms of reference. However, in failing to comply with section 1(1) within the required timescale, the Commissioner finds that the WLC breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Crynodeb: Gofynnodd yr achwynydd am gopïau o'r cylchoedd gorchwyl a’r adroddiadau ar ymchwiliadau yr oedd Comisiynydd y Gymr
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31; FOI 40; FOI 44
View Welsh Language Commissioner
14 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about mortgage possession claims and related details broken down by specified criteria in a five-part request. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) ultimately refused to provide the information for parts 1-4 of the request by virtue of section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) and said it did not hold the information requested in part 5. The complainant subsequently advised that he was only concerned with the MOJ’s reliance on section 44 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) for parts 1-4 of the request for the reasons set out in this notice. She does not require the MOJ to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Ministry of Justice
14 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a mental health programme from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC). The NPCC disclosed some information, withheld some, citing section 43(2)(Commercial interests) of the FOIA, and advised that some information was not held. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the NPCC disclosed some information and also located further information, which it withheld, citing section 22(A) (Research) of the FOIA. The information withheld under section 22(A) was subsequently published, however, not in its entirety as none of the appendices referred to in the main document were included. The Commissioner has considered the application of section 43(2) to part (b) of the request and section 22(A) to the appendices at part (e) of the request. She finds that 43(2) was properly engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption (a small amount of information withheld under section 43(2) was deemed suitable for disclosure by the NP
Exemptions cited: FOI 22A; FOI 31; FOI 40; FOI 43
View National Police Chiefs Council
14 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked the City of Wolverhampton Council for a copy of the file which concerns the sale of a house to her parents in August 1988. Having first refused to comply with the complainant’s request due to an on-going legal dispute, the Council subsequently confirmed to the complainant that neither the Council nor Wolverhampton Homes holds the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the City of Wolverhampton Council has complied with the provision of section 1 of the FOIA by informing the complainant that it does not hold the information she has asked for.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wolverhampton City Council
11 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to noise complaints made against a supermarket. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Wyre Council (“the Council”) has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”). As a response has now been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require Wyre Council to take any further steps in relation to this request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Wyre Borough Council
11 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Injury on Duty appeals. The Policing Board failed to respond to the request until the Commissioner intervened. Accordingly the Commissioner’s decision is that the Policing Board has failed to comply with section 10(1) of FOIA. Since the Policing Board has now issued a response the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Northern Ireland Policing Board
11 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the ‘Operation Julie’ investigation from The National Archives (TNA). TNA considered the first five of the 22 files covered by the request. It considers that this information is the personal data of third persons and is exempt information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information that TNA has considered is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require TNA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The National Archives
11 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council
11 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a variety of information relating to annual accounts. Tintagel Parish Council provided some information but also refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council has not demonstrated that the request was vexatious and is thus not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. She also considers that the Parish Council’s refusal notice did not comply with section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Parish Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, under the FOIA, to the request that does not rely on section 14(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0036 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
10 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on DWP’s external legal costs. DWP has refused to comply with the request on the basis that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request. However, the Commissioner finds that DWP has breached section 10(1) as it failed to confirm that it held the requested information within the statutory timeframe and section 17(5) as it failed to provide its refusal notice within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
10 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about vascular services. The Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust stated that it did not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
10 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a series of documents about the Derbyshire vascular services network. The University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (“The Trust”) refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has not demonstrated that the request was vexatious and was therefore not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. As the Trust failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, it also breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, to the request, which does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
10 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a risk assessment at a site for a particular event from South Kesteven District Council (SKDC). SKDC provided some information but withheld the actual risk assessment citing section 38(1)(Health and safety) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 38(1) is not engaged. She requires SKDC to disclose the requested risk assessment.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View South Kesteven District Council
10 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about an agreement to plant holly whips on a particular strip of land. The council initially refused to deal with the request, referring the complainant to previous correspondence sent to him which had stated that regulation 12(4)(b) would be applied to any repeat requests that were subsequently received from him. At the internal review, the council revised its position. It advised the complainant that it did not hold any information in response to parts 1 and 2 of his request. Whilst the council did go on to provide a limited amount of information in response to part 3 of the request, it confirmed that any remaining information was to be withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council withdrew its reliance on regulation 12(5)(e). However, it confirmed that it now regarded the withheld information to be exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(2)
View Hastings Borough Council
10 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Corby Borough Council (“the Council”) information relating to its Covid-19 grants paid to local companies. The Council provided information to a part of the request and withheld the remaining information under sections 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime) and 40(2) (third party personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied the exemptions to the information relating to parts 1 and 2 of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1); FOI 40(2)
10 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) regarding the internal and external costs incurred as a result of the Council pursuing planning enforcement action against the display of an art installation in Columbia Wharf. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Hackney
9 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information generated by a tendering exercise undertaken by the Crown Commercial Services .The Cabinet Office relied on section 43 to withhold requested information from the complainant .The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office’s reliance was incorrect.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Cabinet Office
9 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office about its handling of freedom of information requests. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA – vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has failed to demonstrate that the request was vexatious and, therefore, it was not entitled to refuse it under section 14(1). The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: either disclose the requested information, or issue a fresh refusal notice to the complainant which does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
9 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from South Yorkshire Police (SYP) information about allegations that it took a decision not to investigate reports of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Sheffield. SYP responded by saying that to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information would exceed the appropriate costs limit at section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP was entitled to cite section 12(2) of the FOIA and that it had met its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA with regard to the provision of advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View South Yorkshire Police
9 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Newham about mosques. The London Borough of Newham has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The London Borough of Newham must provide a substantive response to the request within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Newham Council
9 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted to Torbay Council a request for information in four parts focused on the Council’s decision to change its logo. The Council responded to one part of the request; stated that it did not hold information in relation to two parts of the request; and one part of the request was considered to be vexatious relying on section 14(1) of FOIA; The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council was correct when it stated that it held no further information within the scope of the first and the third parts of the request. However, the Commissioner found that the Council failed to demonstrate that the third part of the request is vexatious. Therefore, the Council was not entitled to refuse this part of the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the third part of the request that does not rely on section 14(1). The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14
View Torbay Council
9 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Norfolk County Council (“the Council”) regarding complaints made about a specific member of staff. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, relying on section 40(5) – personal information, as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Norfolk County Council
9 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Bromsgrove District Council information in relation to a specific planning application. The Council advised the complainant that some of the relevant information was available on its planning portal and provided additional correspondence related to the request which was not included on its planning portal. The complainant remained dissatisfied and believed that the Council should be in possession of further information within the scope of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council was correct when it stated that it held no further information within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner found that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide all information it held within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0365 struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Bromsgrove District Council
9 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Bishops Castle Town Council (“the Council”) in relation to the felling of a birch tree. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply Regulation 13(1) to withhold some of the information. However, she finds that some of the information is not personal data and therefore, the Council was not correct to apply Regulation 13 in order to withhold it. The Council correctly applied Regulation 5(1). However, the Council also breached regulation 5(2) by failing to provide information within 20 working days and regulation 11(1) as it failed to provide an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the information which is not personal data. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0004 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(1); EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
9 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from St Mary’s University (“the University”) relating to the student accommodation provided by the University. By the date of this notice the University had not provided a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The University must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0014 withdraw
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
9 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Ealing (“the Council”) relating to an incident involving the emergency services and the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (“LTN’s”). By the date of this notice the Council had not provided a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ealing Council
9 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from St Mary’s University (“the University”) relating to accommodation licence agreements. By the date of this notice the Council had not provided a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The University must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0013 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
8 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of information demonstrating the action taken in respect of a particular institution. The Office for Students (“the OfS”) refused to confirm or deny holding relevant information as it stated that to do so would prejudice its regulatory functions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OfS was entitled to rely on section 31(3) to refuse to confirm or deny holding information within the scope of the request and that the public interest favours maintain the exemption. However, as it failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days, the OfS breached section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31
View Office for Students
8 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested two risk assessment documents from the Home Office. The Home Office refused to provide them citing the exemptions at sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement), 23 (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24 (National security) and 40 (Personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office