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
8 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a six part request, the complainant has requested information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) about a specific parking company and about the Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event service. DVLA provided information relevant to one part, advised it does not hold information relevant to three parts and withheld the remaining information under section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA, with the public interest favouring maintaining these exemptions. In the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, DVLA withdrew its reliance on section 43 and released the information it had been withholding under that exemption. The complainant disputes that DVLA does not hold information relevant to part 5 of his request, and its reliance on section 31 to withhold information he requested in part 1. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities DVLA does not hold the information requested in part 1 o
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
8 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Wiltshire Council (the Council) information in relation to two planning applications. The Council refused to comply with the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b) (request is manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0045 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Wiltshire Council
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 a copy of the ‘Academy Concern Reports’ archive from 1 January 2019. The Department for Education (‘DfE’/’the department’) has withheld the information under FOIA sections 30(1) (investigations and proceedings) and 31(1)(g)(law enforcement), sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data), section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 42 (legal professional privilege). Where an exemption is a qualified exemption DfE considers the public interest test favours maintaining that exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information that DfE is withholding is exempt information under section 30(1)(a), section 31(1)(g), section 36(2)(b)(i), section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. The Commissioner does not require DfE to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 31; FOI 36
View Department for Education
7 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Wealden District Council (the council) which relates to the estimated service costs for a particular set of properties for the financial years 2019/20 and 2020/21. The council provided the complainant with some information relating to the estimated service costs for 2019/20. It advised that the information relating to the financial year 2020/21 had not yet been calculated and therefore was not held. At the internal review, the council advised the complainant that whilst it maintained its previous position, it accepted that it should have cited an exemption in its original refusal notice. The council confirmed that as the information was to be published at a later date, it believed section 22 of the FOIA to be engaged. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to cite section 22 of the FOIA in response to the complainant’s request. This is because she is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council d
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wealden District Council
7 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a three part request for information regarding the BBC’s “Own It” app. The BBC provided information in response to one part of the request. It refused to comply with the remaining parts of the request as it considered that the requested information was covered by the derogation and was therefore outside the scope of the FOIA. The complainant disputed that the information was derogated. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information was held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so was not covered by the FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0006 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
7 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Bolton Council (“the Council”) information relating to investigations carried out by the Council and the Environmental Health Department, concerning noise complaints made by residents at a specific address. The Council withheld the information under regulations 12(5)(b) (course of justice), 12(5)(f) (interests of information provider) and 13 (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to the withheld information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Bolton Council
4 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) about sanction points accrued by private parking operators. DVLA’s position is that it does not hold the information the complainant has requested, which the complainant disputes. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities DVLA does not hold the requested information and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require DVLA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
4 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) seeking information about how it processed FOI requests. The Council responded to most parts of the request, however it failed to address one part of it. The complainant contacted the Commissioner to complain about the Council’s failure to address this part of his request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council provided the complainant with a response to this outstanding part of the request. The complainant did not seek to dispute this response but he was unhappy with the length of time it took the Council to respond to this part of his request. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to all parts of the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Waltham Forest Council
4 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of two letters, plus any other information held by Hastings Borough Council (the council) which had been recorded under a specified reference number. The council refused the request under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council withdrew its reliance on regulation 12(5)(b), now stating that it believed regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to be engaged. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) as its basis for withholding the requested information. She has also determined that the public interest weighs in favour of withholding the information in this instance. However, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached regulation 14(2) by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days. In addition, the council has also breached regulation 11(4) by failing to provide its internal review response within the required 40 working days. The Commissioner do
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
4 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Financial Conduct Authority (‘the FCA’) 1) particular policy documents and 2) correspondence received from Leighton Buzzard Narrow Gauge Society Limited. The FCA advised it does not hold information within the scope of part 1 of the request and that the information it holds that is relevant to part 2 is exempt from disclosure under section 44 of the FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the FCA does not hold the specific information the complainant has requested in part 1 of his request and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The information the FCA holds that is relevant to part 2 of the request is exempt information under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the FCA to take any remedial steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0003 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
3 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested any evidence or data held by the Department of Health (DoH) to support public statements made by the Minister of Health in relation to potential mortality rates and the Covid19 pandemic. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DoH to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. The DoH 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 of Health and Social Care
3 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence sent by either Zara Tindall MBE, or her brother Peter Phillips, to the Secretary of State in respect of a particular individual and his business activities. Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) refused to confirm or deny holding any relevant information, as they considered that doing so would, in itself, reveal personal data about the individuals involved, contrary to data protection legislation. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS was entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny holding any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0356 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
3 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the 2005 volume of the MISC 13 series of Cabinet committee records. The Commissioner concluded that on the balance of probabilities, the public authority does not hold any information within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
2 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from The National Archives (TNA) held in two closed files. TNA withheld the requested information citing section 37(1)(a) which relates to communication with or on behalf of the sovereign for the content of both files. Additionally TNA cited sections 40(2) and section 41 for one of the files. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA was correct in withholding the information on the basis of the exemption at section 37(1)(a). However, TNA breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by not responding within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0354 Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 37
View The National Archives
2 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the awarding of a knighthood to Sir Geoffrey Boycott OBE. The Cabinet Office refused to provide this citing sections 37 (honours), 41 (confidentiality) and 40 (personal data) as its reasons for doing so. It upheld this at internal review although it made a further disclosure during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 37 in respect of some of the information but is not entitled to rely on sections 37, 40 and 41 in respect of the remainder. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information listed in the Conclusion section of the Confidential Annex to this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0010 appeal consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Cabinet Office
2 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made several requests for information to Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) relating to a planning condition which he believes affects his property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council complied with its obligations under regulation 5(1) (duty to make available environmental information on request) of the EIR. However, she found that the Council breached regulation 11(4) (representations and reconsiderations) of the EIR as it did not carry out the internal review and notify the complainant of the outcome within the required timescale
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1)
View Trafford Council
1 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department for Transport (DfT) to disclose meetings and correspondence between ministers and/or senior civil servants and Carnival UK for the period 1 March to 9 October 2019. The DfT refused to confirm or deny whether it holds recorded information in accordance with section 24(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds recorded information in accordance with section 24(2) of the FOIA. She does not therefore require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0002 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Transport
1 Dec 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about joint inspection work in respect of non-maintained settings. Estyn provided some of the information requested and withheld other information under section 43(2) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation Estyn disclosed some of the information it originally withheld. The Commissioner’s decision that Estyn has correctly applied section 43 to the remaining withheld information. However, the Commissioner finds that Estyn breached section 10(1) in failing to disclose some of the information requested within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View Estyn
1 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Education (DfE) about the School Complaints Unit. The DfE says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12 of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12 and is satisfied that the DfE met its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the DfE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department for Education
1 Dec 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the responses to a consultation on the Pubs Code and Pub Codes Adjudicator. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) refused to disclose the requested information, applying section 22 (information intended for future publication) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS incorrectly applied section 22 of the FOIA in this case.
However, as BEIS have now published much of the information to which the exemption was applied and the complainant does not dispute the additional exemptions subsequently applied to the remaining information, the Commissioner does not require BEIS to take any further steps in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Department for Business and Trade
1 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the EANI regarding placement of statemented children in schools. The EANI refused to disclose some of the requested information, citing section 40(2) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. It refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 12(1) of the FOIA.
1. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EANI has correctly applied sections 12(1) and 40(2) of the FOIA to the requested information.2. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 40(2)
1 Dec 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a Secondary Transfer Test. The position of The Buckinghamshire Grammar Schools (‘TBGS’) is that it does not hold information relevant to five parts of the request and that four parts are exempt from disclosure under section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and/or section 43(2) (commercial interests) with the public interest favouring maintaining the section 43 exemption. The complainant disputes TBGS’ reliance on section 41 and/or 43. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information that TBGS holds and is withholding is information provided in confidence and is therefore exempt from disclosure under section 41(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require TBGS to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
30 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a traffic calming consultation from Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (the Council). The Council provided some information but refused to provide actual addresses of those consulted, citing section 40(2) (Personal information) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is properly engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Stockton-on-Tees Council
30 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an alleged incident from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it held any information, citing the exemptions at sections 40(5B)(a)(i) (personal information), section 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 30(3). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Metropolitan Police Service
30 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a series of requests, the complainant has requested information about a Secondary Transfer Test. The position of The Buckinghamshire Grammar Schools (‘TBGS’) is that it does not hold information relevant to some parts of the requests and that other parts are exempt from disclosure under section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and/or section 43(2) (commercial interests) with the public interest favouring maintaining the section 43 exemption. The complainant disputes TBGS’ reliance on section 41 and/or 43 with regard to part 5 of the request submitted on 21 September 2019 and part 9 of the request submitted on 5 October 2019. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information requested in parts 5 and 9 of the above request, that the TBGS holds and is withholding, is information provided in confidence and is therefore exempt from disclosure under section 41(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require TBGS to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
30 Nov 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various pieces of information from the council relating to particular properties, to which the council responded that the information was not held for some aspects and that they could neither confirm nor deny other items. The Commissioner’s decision is that Huntingdonshire District Council does not hold any information in scope of the request. However, the council responded outside of statutory timescales and therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 5
View Huntingdonshire District Council
30 Nov 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding objections raised with the authorities external auditor.The Commissioner’s decision is that Kirby Muxloe Parish Council has appropriately relied upon section 41 to withhold the requested information. However in it breached section 10 and section 16 in its handling of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 41
30 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an alleged incident from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it held any information, citing the exemptions at sections 40(5B)(a)(i) (personal information), section 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 30(3). No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0016 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Metropolitan Police Service
26 Nov 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Through two, multi part requests the complainant has requested a variety of information from St Ralph Sherwin Catholic Multi Academy Trust (‘the Trust’). The Trust has categorised the requests as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA and has refused to comply with them. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s requests of 2 July 2019 and 7 July 2019 cannot be categorised as vexatious requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a response to the above two requests that complies with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View ST RALPH SHERWIN CATHOLIC MULTI ACADEMY TRUST
26 Nov 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding Covid-19 testing in the Walthamstow area.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department of Health and Social Care 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 the Department of Health and Social Care 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 Cabinet Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
The PA must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
The Cabinet Office must take this step 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 Hi
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
26 Nov 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the costs involved in a particular prosecution. The Crown Prosecution Service refused to confirm or deny holding the information as any information it held would be the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS has failed to demonstrate that any relevant information it held would identify the complainant and would therefore be his personal data. As such, the information would not be covered by section 40(1) of the FOIA and therefore the CPS is not allowed to rely on section 40(5A) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny holding information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the CPS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: confirm or deny whether it holds information within the scope of the request and, to the extent that relevant information is held, either communicate that information or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the FOIA
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
25 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a particular planning application. South Northamptonshire Council (the Council), provided some information within the scope of the request but denied holding further information. The complainant considered that the Council held further relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council is correct when it says that it holds no further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View North Northamptonshire Council
25 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the qualification and area of psychiatry expertise of an individual. The individual in question was employed by the General Medical Council (the GMC) to investigate a doctor responsible for the care of a close relative of the complainant, who died in hospital. The GMC has refused to confirm or deny that it holds this information under section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA, as it believes that to do so would disclose personal data, and that this disclosure would contravene data protection legislation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC can rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information, as she is satisfied that doing so would contravene data protection legislation. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC
24 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about a visit David Cameron had made to Bahrain in January 2017. The FCDO provided the complainant with a digest of information falling within the scope of his request but redacted parts of it on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) (international relations), 38(1)(b) (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The FCDO also refused to confirm or deny whether it held any further information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 24(2) (national security) and 38(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the information redacted by the FCDO is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and 38(1)(b). She has also concluded that the FCDO is entitled to rely on section 38(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any further information falling within the scope of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 38
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
24 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Milton Keynes Council (“the Council”) information relating to the Free School competitions run by the Council for Kents Hill Park Schools and Western Expansion Area secondary school. The Council withheld the requested information under sections 43(2) (commercial interests) and 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Council subsequently withdrew its reliance of section 36 and applied section 43(1) (trade secrets) of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA to the information requested. Therefore, she has not gone on to consider the application of section 43(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Milton Keynes Council
24 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (“the MHCLG”) for recorded information which concerns a housing development site at Peel Hall, Warrington. The MHCLG refused to disclose the information it holds about this matter in reliance on the exception to disclosure provided by Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG has properly applied Regulation 12(4)(e) to the information it holds which is relevant to the complainant’s request and therefore it is entitled to withhold that information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
24 Nov 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the number of prosecutions for offences relating to the registration of trade places the DVLA has undertaken in the last five years. The DVLA refused to provide this information on the basis of section 31(1)(d) of the FOIA as it considered it would be likely to prejudice its ability to collect Vehicle Excise Duty. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA has not demonstrated that the section 31(1)(d) exemption is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information requested at part 3 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
24 Nov 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Hull College Group, which, is the trading name for Hull College (the College) the start and end date and total cost of its Club Stadium Naming Rights Agreement with Hull Kingston Rovers Football Club Limited (the Club). The College withheld the requested information under section 43(2) of the FOIA (Commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has not sufficiently demonstrated that section 43(2) of the FOIA is engaged in relation to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
23 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Milton Keynes Council (“the Council”) information relating to the Free School competition run by the Council for Glebe Farm School. The Council withheld the requested information under sections 43(2) (commercial interests) and 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Council subsequently withdrew its reliance of section 36 and applied section 43(1) (trade secrets) of the FOIA to the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA to the information requested. Therefore, she has not gone on to consider the application of section 43(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0350 Appeal Allowed in Part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Milton Keynes Council
23 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a variety of information about personalised provision. The Board of East Sussex College Group refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the College was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
23 Nov 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to various aspects of St Albans Parish Council’s (the Council’s) decisions and processes. The Council disclosed information in response to the multi-part request, but withheld some information on the basis that section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA applied. The complainant believed that the Council held more information within the scope of the request. They also disputed the redactions applied to the information provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has disclosed to the complainant all the information it holds that falls within the scope of the request. However, she found that the Council had applied section 40(2) incorrectly to some of the withheld information, namely the email addresses of Councillors. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld Councillors’ email addresses.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
23 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details about an event involving an MP from Sussex Police (SP). Having initially refused the request citing sections 30(1) (Investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (Personal information), SP subsequently disclosed the requested information with redactions for personal information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The complainant did not dispute the redactions, but he believed further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, no further information is held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Sussex Police
20 Nov 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a waste disposal contract. The Council disclosed some information, but withheld the remainder citing the following exceptions of the EIR: 12(5)e – confidentiality of industrial or commercial information; 12(4)d – material in the course of completion/unfinished documents; and 13(2) – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that has Derby City Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)e is engaged, and for regulation 12(4)d, that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exception. The Council has correctly applied regulation 13 to third party personal data. The Council also breached regulation 5(2) by failing to provide information within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose unredacted copies of the Service Continuity Contract, the two leases and the Draft Inter-A
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
View Derby City Council
20 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Plymouth City Council (“the Council”) information regarding the Gormley sculpture. The Council withheld the requested information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) and subsequently applied section 40(2) (third party personal data) of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA. Therefore, she has not gone on to consider the application of section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0346 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Plymouth City Council
19 Nov 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office about the Covid-19 press conferences. The Cabinet Office has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Cabinet Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
19 Nov 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a business relationship with another education network. Ormiston Academies Trust refused to comply with the request but did not cite an exemption from the FOIA which would have permitted it to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to issue an adequate refusal notice in response to the request and has therefore breached section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a response, under the FOIA, to the request. If and to the extent that the Trust wishes to refuse the request, it should issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View ORMISTON ACADEMIES TRUST
19 Nov 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of the data fields on the National Ballistics Intelligence Service (“NABIS”) database from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (“NPCC”). The NPCC refused to provide the requested information citing 31(1)(a)(b) (law enforcement) and 24(1) (national security) of the FOIA. It subsequently revised this and cited section 12(1) (cost of compliance) to refuse to deal with the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the NPCC was entitled to rely on section 12(1), however, she finds that it breached section 16(1) (advice and assistance) of the FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View National Police Chiefs Council
19 Nov 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any emails which relate to an incident which occurred at Seacombe Birthing Centre in 2018. The council provided some information however it withheld other information on the basis that section 40(2), and section 36 of the Act applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 40(2). She has however decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36; FOI 40(2)
View Wirral Council