2 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a transmission log of the faxes received by the Central London County Court during specified time periods. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal UT PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
2 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding whether disciplinary action was taken against a specified employee. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold this information. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps regarding this request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0343 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for Work and Pensions
2 Nov 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Department of Health and Social Care (“DHSC”) information relating to “Exercise Cygnus”. By the date of this notice, the DHSC had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC 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 DHSC to take the following step 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 DHSC 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 High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Department of Health and Social Care
2 Nov 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office about a contract. 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
2 Nov 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about public toilets. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the basis of the available evidence, Olney Town Council (“the Council”) has failed to issue a response to the request, that complies with the FOIA, 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; if and to the extent that, the Council requires further clarification to process the request, contact the complainant to explain what further clarification he must provide.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ilkley Town Council
2 Nov 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) information regarding the orthodontic procurement process run by NHS England.
The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires NHS England 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.
NHS England 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 NHS England
2 Nov 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Liverpool City Council (the Council) information in relation to two planning applications. The Council provided the complainant with what it stated was all the information it held within the scope of the request. However, the complainant was not satisfied with the amount of the information received.
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. However, the Commissioner found that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide information it held within 20 working days.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Liverpool City Council
2 Nov 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office about services provided by a private company. 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
2 Nov 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Preston City Council (the Council) information in relation to complaints submitted against Boulevard Community Centre (BCC). The Council disclosed some information but decided to redact personal data of third parties.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to withhold the personal details of individuals who submitted complaints against BCC under regulation 13(1) (personal information) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Preston City Council
2 Nov 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon about conflict of interest procedures. The London Borough of Croydon has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the London Borough of Croydon to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The London Borough of Croydon must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Croydon
30 Oct 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to vehicle registration numbers (VRN’s) and the DVLA’s position on whether these constitute personal data. Initially the DVLA refused to treat the requests as valid requests for information under the FOIA. This was later rectified and the DVLA issued a revised response, which complied with its obligations under the FOIA, to the complainant. The Commissioner is satisfied that the DVLA has now responded in accordance with the FOIA and disclosed the recorded information it holds. However, the DVLA breached section 1 and 10 of the FOIA, by failing to treat the requests as valid requests and respond within 20 working days and by failing to disclose information to which the complainant was entitled within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
30 Oct 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a number of requests to the City of York Council (“the Council”) for information regarding the creation of a road. The Council did not respond to the complainant’s first request and refused the third request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the exception is engaged and is therefore not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse Request 3. She also finds that the Council has not complied with its obligations under regulation 5(2) of the EIR for Requests 1 and 2. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Issue a response to Request 1.
• Issue a response to part 1 of Request 2.
• Issue a fresh response to Request 3 which does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Fai
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2)
View York City Council
29 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCDO) seeking copies of correspondence for the period August 2017 to August 2019 exchanged between Jack Straw, a previous Secretary of State of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Permanent Secretary of the department. The FCDO sought to withhold the information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 40(2) (personal data), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the information falling within the scope of the request is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
29 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about which individuals who received a New Year’s honour in 2017 were nominated by Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS). DCMS confirmed that they held information falling within scope of the request but they considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 37(1)(b)(honours) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 37(1)(b) and that in all of the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, the Commissioner has found that DCMS breached section 10 of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require DCMS to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
29 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of Leeds (“the university”) about the candidates invited to interview for a post as Lecturer in Commercial Law. The university withheld the majority of the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is the personal data of the candidates and it would not be lawful to disclose it. The university therefore correctly withheld the information under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the university to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The University of Leeds
28 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted to Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (the Council) an information request in five parts about tax debts to the Council for any councillor who represented a particular ward for a certain period of time. The Council withheld some of the requested information under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold part of the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require any step to be taken as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0324 appeal withdrawn.
The Commissioner does not require any step to be taken as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0324 disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Redcar and Cleveland Council
28 Oct 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (the “Trust”) information about aspects of its mental health treatment services. The Trust refused to provide the requested information citing section 14(1) of the FOIA, that the request was vexatious and that responding to it would be a grossly oppressive burden. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. 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 14
View Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust
28 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of legal advice relating to a specific planning application. Snowdonia National Park Authority (‘the Authority’) withheld the information under the exception for the course of justice – regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Authority has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Snowdonia National Park Authority
28 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about an independent assessment of a proposed scheme of road building. Transport East disclosed some information in response to the request. Based on the particular wording of the request, the complainant believed that Transport East may hold further information which it had not disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, Transport East has disclosed to the complainant all the information it holds which falls within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
28 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about whether the Aldermaston Women’s Peace Camp was included on any watchlist or database of domestic extremism and what the criteria were for inclusion on such a list. The MOD refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 23(5) (security bodies), 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) law enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 23(5) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Ministry of Defence
27 Oct 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding property development and planning held by Ealing council .Ealing Council relies on regulations 12(4) (e) , 12(4)(d) and 12 (5) f to withhold the requested information .The Commissioner’s decision is that Ealing Council reliance on the exceptions was incorrect.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with the withheld information save for it is not to provide the names and contact details of all persons contained therein.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Ealing Council
27 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Inspiring Futures through Learning (“IFtL”) information relating to the application which IFtL made to run the Glebe Farm School, Milton Keynes. IFtL withheld information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA to some parts of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that IFtL correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require IFtL to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View INSPIRING FUTURES THROUGH LEARNING
27 Oct 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the number of meetings that the Home Secretary had had with the Prime Minister. The Home Office had yet to respond because it had not completed its public interest considerations at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has failed to complete its considerations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable timeframe 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: either confirm or deny that information is held or; provide a copy of any information that is held or; issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Home Office
26 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information connected with a court matter. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) advised the complainant that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the MOJ does not hold the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0331 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
26 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested registration information about a named doctor. The General Medical Council (GMC) has withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considers it to be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The GMC is entitled to withhold the information the complainant has requested under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it is the personal data of a third person and disclosing it would be unlawful. The Commissioner does not require the GMC to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0335 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC
26 Oct 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about legal fees relating to the Sports and Leisure strategy and Pontllanfraith Leisure Centre. The Commissioner’s decision is that Caerphilly County Borough Council (‘the Council’) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. However, as the Council has now provided the complainant with a response, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Caerphilly County Borough Council
26 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (the “Trust”) information about aspects of its mental health treatment services. The Trust refused to provide the requested information, citing section 12(1) of the FOIA – that the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit for compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly cited section 12(1) and provided advice and assistance to the complainant in line with its duty under section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0307 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
25 Oct 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested communications, documents, photographs and other information relating to the removal of asbestos at a demolition site. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) refused to provide the information it held under the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the regulation 12(5)(b) exception is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information within the scope of the request, with appropriate redactions under section 40(2) for any personal data.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Health and Safety Executive
23 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the appointment of election monitors. The British-Russia Centre and East-West Centre stated that it did not hold the requested information but argued that it was no longer a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, whilst the Centre is indisputably listed in schedule 1 of the FOIA, it no longer satisfies the second condition set out in section 4(3) of the FOIA. Therefore, by virtue of section 4(4) of the FOIA, the Centre has ceased to be a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA and it was not obliged to comply with the request. As the Centre is not a public authority, the Commissioner has no power to require it to take further steps. Given the implications of her decision and her general duties under section 47 of the FOIA, the Commissioner considers it necessary to make recommendations to the Cabinet Office. These are discussed under the “Other Matters” section of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3; FOI 4
23 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) both of which sought details of allegations and investigations into HMRC staff who were alleged to have committed a number of specified offences when applying for jobs. HMRC refused the first request on the basis of section 12(1) (appropriate cost limit) and argued that the information falling within the scope of the second request was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to refuse the first request on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA and that the information sought by the second request is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 40
23 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details from Tamworth Borough Council (“the Council”) regarding the details of meetings and people who conducted a previous internal review. The Council stated that it did not hold all of the information within the scope of the complainant’s request but it provided some of the information that it did hold. It also withheld part of the held information and relied on section 40 of the FOIA to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that she is satisfied that the Council only holds some of the information within the scope of the request and that the Council has correctly relied upon section 40(2) to withhold the information it has done. The Commissioner therefore does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View Tamworth Borough Council
22 Oct 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Highways England (HE) to disclose information in relation to the A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Scheme. It disclosed some information but refused to disclose the remainder citing regulations 12(5)(e), 12(5)(f) and 13 of the EIR. The complainant raised no concerns in respect of regulation 13, so the Commissioner’s investigation has focussed on HE’s application of regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. With regards to document 3 and HE’s application of regulation 12(5)(e), the Commissioner is satisfied that this exception applies and the public interest rests in maintaining this exception. Regarding document 5 and HE’s application of 12(5)(f) of the EIR, the Commissioner has decided that this exception does not apply. The Commissioner therefore requires HE to disclose the information redacted from document 5 under regulation 12(5)(f) to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View National Highways
22 Oct 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a range of information from the Academies Trust (“the Trust”) relating to budget planning, costs saving, staffing and other subjects. The Trust responded to several parts of the request but withheld information from a financial recovery plan on the basis of section 36 and 43 of the FOIA. The complainant also considered part 8 of the request had not been fully responded to. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36 is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure of the information in the recovery plan. The Commissioner did not find the section 43 exemption to be engaged. In terms of the information requested at part 8 of the request, the Commissioner finds that the Trust has not explicitly confirmed if this information is held and has therefore failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information from the recovery plan referred to in part 2 of the request; and confirm if the
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36; FOI 43
View UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON ACADEMIES TRUST
21 Oct 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) which it has not previously released about details of complaints that the PHSO had received about other government departments and public bodies in 2018/19. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the PHSO to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. The PHSO 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 The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
21 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held on large raised reservoirs across various datasets by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency withheld information from two of the datasets on the basis of regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA has correctly applied the exception and the balance of the public interest favours withholding the information in the datasets. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0332 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Environment Agency
21 Oct 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a Leasehold Interest at Units 5-8 Mochdre Commerce Park. Conwy County Borough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for personal data – section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Conwy County Borough Council correctly withheld information under section 40(2) but that it disclosed some information outside the statutory time limit and breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View Conwy County Borough Council
21 Oct 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home office about submissions as set out in paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules, which they received and processed in the years 2017/18 to 2019/20. The Home Office had failed to provide a substantive response to this request by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. 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 section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
21 Oct 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Environment Agency under the Re-use of Public Sector information Regulations 2015 (RPSI) to reuse information in a particular dataset (AfA134) relating to large raised reservoirs. The EA made the dataset available under a Conditional Licence with restrictions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA breached regulation 12(2) by placing unnecessarily restrictive conditions on re-use. The Commissioner therefore requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the permit re-use under the Open Government Licence. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0333 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: RPSI 12(2)
View Environment Agency
20 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) Disclosure Team. The MoJ refused to provide the requested information citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ applied section 40(2) appropriately to the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
20 Oct 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested meeting minutes and reports from the University of Central Lancashire (‘the University’). The University released information within the scope of the request, withholding some under FOIA section 43 (commercial interests) and section 40 (personal data). The complainant is dissatisfied with procedural aspects of the University’s handling of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The University breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) of the FOIA as it did not comply with section 1(1) or issue a refusal notice in respect of some of the requested information within the required timescale. No breach of section 16(1) occurred as there was no requirement on the University to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17
20 Oct 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Highdown School and Sixth Form Centre (‘the School’) about an incident involving their child. The School has refused to comply with the request under the FOIA as it considers the request to be vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The request cannot be categorised as a vexatious request under section 14(1). The School has breached section 17(5) as it did not provide the complainant with a section 14 refusal notice within the required timescale of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the School to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a response to their request of 18 December 2019 that complies with the FOIA. If the School considers that the requested information should be withheld under any of the section 40 exemptions its response should be an appropriate refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View WYEDEAN SCHOOL AND SIXTH FORM CENTRE
19 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development (FCDO) seeking information about an investigation into money laundering. The FCO refused to provide the information on the basis of section 23(1) (security bodies) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the FCDO to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
19 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding the costs of repainting road markings in a particular location. Colchester Borough Council (the Council) initially stated that it did not hold the requested information. However, it disclosed information to the complainant in its internal review response. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council confirmed that the requested information was not held and that it had created information in order to respond to the request and to assist the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(1)
View Colchester City Council
19 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report provided to the Cabinet Office by the Intelligence and Security Committee to Parliament (ISC). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 23(1) (security bodies) of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
19 Oct 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding CCTV locations in relation to properties. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council has provided all the information held within the scope of the request. However the council responded outside of statutory timescales and therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Doncaster Council
19 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding the costs of repainting road markings in a particular location. Essex County Council (the Council) stated that it did not hold the requested information. However, in an attempt to assist the complainant it provided him with information which it created in response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(1)
View Essex County Council
19 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding the costs of repainting road markings in a particular location. Braintree District Council (the Council) initially stated that it did not hold the requested information. It revised its position after an internal review and disclosed some information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council confirmed that the requested information was not held and that the information which it disclosed had been created in order to respond to the request and to assist the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(1)
View Braintree District Council
19 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to decisions about a Core Strategy Plan (relating to housing supply). Reigate & Banstead Borough Council refused the request, withholding the information under the exceptions for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)) and the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Reigate & Banstead Borough Council has correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0325 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
19 Oct 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the subject of infected blood during a specified time period. The MoJ refused to provide the requested information, relying on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following step 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 14
View Ministry of Justice
19 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust (the “Trust”) information about aspects of its mental health treatment services. The Trust refused to provide the requested information, citing section 12(1) of the FOIA – that the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit for compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly cited section 12(1) and provided advice and assistance to the complainant in line with its duty under section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0304 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Southern Health NHS Trust