1 Oct 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department for Education (DfE) to disclose the analysis conducted of each education sector in connection with the proposal to increase funding to teachers’ pensions employer contributions. Initially, the DfE refused to disclose the information under section 40 of the FOIA. Later the DfE applied section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the DfE also sought to rely on section 42 of the FOIA for a section of the withheld information labelled ‘Legal position’. The Commissioner’s decision is that while section 35(1)(a) is engaged, the public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption is outweighed by the public interest in favour of disclosure. With regards to section 42 of the FOIA, the Commissioner accepts that this applies to the section labelled ‘Legal position’ and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exemption. She requires the DfE to disclose the withheld information with the exception of the section lab
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 42
View Department for Education
1 Oct 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests, the complainant has requested information associated with an incident at his home. The Health and Safety Executive (‘HSE’) has refused to comply with the requests which it considers to be vexatious requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s requests of 3 April 2019 and 15 April 2019 can be categorised as vexatious requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA and HSE is not obliged to comply with them. The Commissioner does not require HSE to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Health and Safety Executive
30 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of a particular pre-application planning file. Snowdonia National Park Authority (‘the Authority’) withheld the information requested under regulations 12(5)(f) and 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Authority has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(f) to the withheld information. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Snowdonia National Park Authority
30 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from North East London NHS Foundation Trust (“NELFT”) information about aspects of its mental health treatment services. NELFT 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 NELFT 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 as far as it was reasonable to expect the public authority to do so. However, NELFT breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by not responding within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0291 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12; FOI 16
View North East London NHS Foundation Trust
30 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from The NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) about the number and subsequent assessment of recommendations submitted by CCGs, between 2015/16 and 2019/20, for funding through NHS England’s Estates and Technology Transformation Fund (ETTF). NHS England had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England 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, under the FOIA, to the request. 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
30 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested the name of the individual who made a complaint to Neath Port Talbot Council (‘the Council’) about his dog barking. The Council withheld the information under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 13 to the information requested. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
30 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to planning enforcement site visits at a particular address. Milton Keynes Council (the Council) disclosed some information within the scope of the request. It redacted some information but did not specify whether it was out of scope, or whether any exceptions applied. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council confirmed that information was redacted under regulation 13 of the EIR (personal data). However, it is the Commissioner’s view that the redacted information was, in fact, outside the scope of the request. The complainant was dissatisfied with the amount of information that had been provided and believed that the Council held further relevant information. 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 does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. I
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Milton Keynes Council
29 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Unique Reference Number (URN) of a particular care home. The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills refused to provide the information as it considered that the particular information requested fell outside the scope of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is held by Ofsted for the purposes of functions exercisable by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills. As such, the information is derogated and section 1(1) of the FOIA does not require Ofsted to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
29 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the same information as had been requested in several information requests made on the WhatDoTheyKnow website. The ICO has provided the information in relation to the third of the cited requests but has not, to date, provided a substantive response in relation to the other two quoted requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the ICO to issue a substantive request under the FOIA to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Information Commissioner
29 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested evidence of discussions relating to a conclusion made by [name redacted] and all draft versions of this letter. The complainant has also requested documentation relating to an explanation given by the Home Office to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman from October/November 2019 through to February 2020. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Home Office respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
29 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested discretionary assessment criteria used by the Department for Infrastructure in respect of applications for Blue Badges. The Department refused the request in reliance on the exception at regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception is engaged and that the public interest in maintaining that exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0308 Appeal Allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Department for Infrastructure (Northern Ireland)
29 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to communications between the Home Office and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) regarding a request from Visa Facilitation Service Global to not disclose information to the PHSO. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
29 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the costs incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to a specified set of proceedings. The Crown Prosecution Service neither confirmed nor denied whether it held the requested information, citing the exemption at section 40(5) FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner decided that all the information that had been requested would, if held, be the complainant’s own personal data. She therefore found that the Crown Prosecution Service was not obliged to supply any information under FOIA as any information it held falling within the scope of the request would attract the absolute exemption at Section 40(1) FOIA. Accordingly the Commissioner did not require the Crown Prosecution Service to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
29 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for information relating to the data anonymisation method used for providing data to Palantir and Faculty AI. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) has not provided a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England 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 NHS England to provide the complainant with a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
29 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Chelmsford City Council information consisting of planning documentation associated with the approved class for a specific property. The Council stated that all relevant documents requested were accessible in its planning portal, except legal advice that the Council sought and received in relation to this property. The Council cited the exemption provided under section 42(1) of the FOIA (legal professional privilege) as its basis for refusing to disclose this document. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council acknowledged that the request should have been considered under the EIR instead of the FOIA. However, the Council maintained that the withheld information was exempt under regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to the withheld information.
The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken as a result of this
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Chelmsford City Council
28 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a proposed ‘Band D Council tax percentage increase’. Cheshire Constabulary 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, Cheshire Constabulary does not hold the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cheshire Constabulary
28 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about its clinical advisors from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (‘PHSO’). PHSO has categorised the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA and has refused to comply with it. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s request is a vexatious request under section 14(1) of the FOIA and PHSO is not obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require PHSO to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0277 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
28 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a proposed flood wall. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council has correctly relied upon regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the requested information. However it failed to issue an adequate refusal notice within the statutory time periods and therefore breached regulation 14. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Wirral Council
28 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office about specified records. 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
28 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various information in respect of compliance with Part 91A of the Buildings Regulation Act 1984. The Council refused the request on the basis of regulation 13 of the EIR on the same basis it had refused a related request. However, subsequent to the First-tier Tribunal’s ruling on the related request [EA/2018/0158] the Council amended its response and agreed to provide the information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to provide the information within the required timescales (20 working days from receipt of the request), Carmarthenshire County Council has breached regulation 5 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Carmarthenshire County Council
28 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding parking policies configured into a council system. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, North Tyneside Council is not withholding any information in scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View North Tyneside Council
25 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of original statements issued in or around March 2020 by the General Optical Council (GOC) regarding the suspension of routine services and suggestions about other procedural changes in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. By the date of this notice the GOC had failed to issue a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GOC failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the GOC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. The GOC 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 General Optical Council
25 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about students’ authorised absences from Harris Primary Academy Philip Lane (‘the Academy’). The Academy released information falling within the scope of the request, but the complainant considers the Academy holds further relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Academy holds no further information relevant to the request and has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Academy breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not release the relevant information it holds within 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Academy to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0306 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
25 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested particular internal guidance from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). PHSO advised that it does not hold the internal guidance requested but holds relevant legal advice. PHSO’s position is that the legal advice is exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) of the FOIA (legal professional privilege) and that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information that PHSO holds that falls within the scope of the complainant’s request is exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) of the FOIA. The public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the PHSO to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0276 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
24 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about retrospective injury on duty awards. The Northern Ireland Policing Board had failed to respond to the request at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Board failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Board 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 Northern Ireland Policing Board
24 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted three requests to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information about contracts awarded to the company IN2. The FCO confirmed that it had awarded two contracts to the company and provided details of the payments made to it. However, it explained that it considered the further information about the contracts sought by the complainant to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 24(1) (national security) and 38(1)(b) (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the names of the contracts, a brief description of them, and details of where they took place, including a breakdown of the regions by contract, is information which is all exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 24(1) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the contracts’ award, start and end dates, and the individual value of each contract is information which is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of either section 24(1) or 38(1)(b) o
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 38
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
24 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a decision to re-route a section of the coastal path. Natural England disclosed some information and said that it was not required to disclose the remainder, by virtue of regulations 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings), regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the person providing the information) and regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Natural England was entitled to rely on regulations 12(5)(d) and (f) of the EIR to withhold the information from disclosure. She finds that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, Natural England does not hold notes of the meetings referred to in its response to the request, and therefore that regulation 12(4)(a) was also applied correctly. However, she is not satisfied that Natural England complied fully with the requirements of regulation 11(3) of the EIR when conducting the internal review. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0294 app
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(3); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Natural England
24 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from North East Lincolnshire Council (“the Council”) information relating to Impower Consultancy’s review of local SEND services. The Council refused this request under section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely upon section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View North East Lincolnshire Council
24 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on Schedule 5 (Payment Mechanism) of a particular 24 year contract between the London Borough of Merton (“the Council”) and IdVerde. The Council initially cited section 43 – Commercial interests, as its basis for withholding the requested information. Later relying on section 41 FOIA – Information provided in confidence. During the course of the complaint the Council disclosed redacted information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is environmental information within the meaning of regulation 2(1)(c) of the EIR. The Council can rely on regulation 12(5)(e) - Commercial confidentiality) as a basis for withholding the remainder of the information. However, the Council breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 14(2) as it did not make the redacted information available or refuse the request within 20 working days of the date of receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2); EIR 2(1); EIR 5(2)
View Merton Council
24 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS Merton Clinical Commissioning Group about proposals for Wilson Health and Wellbeing Campus. During the Commissioner’s investigation, NHS Merton Clinical Commissioning Group merged to become part of NHS South West London Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’), with the latter taking on the functions of the former. The CCG’s position is that it does not hold information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the CCG does not hold the information the complainant has requested. The CCG breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not confirm it does not hold the information within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Commissioner does not require the CCG to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View NHS South West London Clinical Commissioning Group
23 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a variety of information from the University of Manchester relating to the appeal he made. The university responded providing a response to each question and access to some documentation. The complainant remained dissatisfied, as he felt the university had failed to respond to his request appropriately and had failed to provide a copy of all the recorded information it holds. He also complained about the delays he had suffered. During the Commissioner’s investigation further recorded information was identified and disclosed to the complainant on a number of occasions. The complainant is satisfied that this element of his complaint has been resolved. However, he remains dissatisfied with how the university has handled his request and the piecemeal disclosure of information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA, by failing to respond to the request in 20 working days and by failing to disclose to the c
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View The University of Manchester
23 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department of Health and Social Care (the DHSC) to disclose a copy of the final Impact Assessment (IA), produced in July 2019, for the ‘Community Pharmacy Contractual Framework 2019/20 to 2023/24’ (CPCF). The DHSC refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 35(1)(a) and 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) does not apply. However, section 43(2) of the FOIA does apply to the sections of the IA identified by the DHSC. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to disclose the sections of the IA to which section 43(2) of the FOIA has not been applied to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 43(2)
View Department of Health and Social Care
22 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to errors that occurred with a specific 11+ test. TGBS provided some of the requested information but withheld some information under section 41 and 43(2) FOIA. It confirmed that some information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that TGBS has correctly applied section 41 and 43(2) FOIA to the withheld information and that TGBS does not hold the information it has confirmed is not held under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0310 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 41
21 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to modifications to bus lane signage on Ripple Lane in Barking. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the public authority does not hold recorded information within the scope of the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0287 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Barking and Dagenham Council
21 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Use of Force forms. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation - issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
21 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a report into Operation Cygnus. The Department of Health and Social Care had failed to respond at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that, based on the evidence provided, the complainant’s original request was not valid, however he did make a valid request at a later date. In the circumstances, the Commissioner considers that the DHSC 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 also considers that, based on the available evidence, the DHSC breached its section 16 duty because it failed to clarify the request in writing. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: either provide a copy of the information or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 17; FOI 8
View Department of Health and Social Care
21 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of communications that arose from a particular email. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) refused to comply with the request and cited section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests) as its basis for doing so.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
21 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from North East Lincolnshire Council (“the Council”) information in three parts relating to written food warnings. The Council initially refused this request under section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests). The Council later withdrew its citing of section 14(1) and cited section 30(1)(a) of the FOIA (investigations and proceedings). It then disclosed to the complainant information at part three of the request and maintained its citing of section 30(1)(a) for parts one and two. The Council then revised its position again and refused this request under section 12(1) of the FOIA (costs limit).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely upon section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s view is that the Council has also not complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Issue a fres
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View North East Lincolnshire Council
21 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the MoD about electronic radiosondes. The MoD has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The MoD must provide a substantive response to the request within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Ministry of Defence
18 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Keele University (the “university”) the correspondence between Professor Clifford Stott and the Independent Police Complaints Council (“IPCC”) in Hong Kong during a period of four months in 2019. The university refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 36, 41 and 22(A). During the Commissioner’s investigation the university disclosed some information to the complainant with the redaction of certain personal information under section 40(2). It also cited sections 27, 38 and 43 as additional exemptions in respect of the remaining information it was continuing to withhold. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has appropriately applied both section 36 and section 40(2) to the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0285 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Keele University
18 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information, such as meeting notes and correspondence relating to the Tonnage Tax Working Group. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Department for Transport (DfT) disclosed some of the information to the complainant but continued to withhold the correspondence between various parties on the development of the UK Tonnage Tax Policy on the basis of section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has correctly applied the section 35(1)(a) exemption and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the remaining information in the scope of the request. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Transport
17 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to policy development regarding access to the electoral register from the Cabinet Office. Initially, it had relied on section 12 (costs exceed appropriate limit) but following the intervention of the Commissioner it revised its position and made a partial disclosure. However, it relied on provisions of section 35 (formulation/development of government policy) and section 42 (legal professional privilege) as its basis for withholding the remainder. It failed to deal with the complainant’s request for internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(b) as its basis for withholding the remainder of the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
17 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to complaints about a named doctor and deaths statistics on a ward the named doctor was associated with. The Trust refused to confirm or deny whether some of the requested information was held, it withheld some of the requested information under section 40(2) FOIA and confirmed that it did not hold some of the requested information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the Trust correctly applied the exemptions at section 40(2) and 40(5) FOIA and that on the balance of probabilities, the remaining information requested is not held by the Trust under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
17 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to which ward a particular consultant transferred from before working on another specified ward. The Trust initially refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5) FOIA. Subsequently, during the Commissioner’s investigation it confirmed that it did not hold the requested information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that on the balance of probabilities, there is no recorded information held by the Trust under section 1(1)(a) FOIA falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
17 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning any responses to the findings of Exercise Cygnus, including correspondence between The NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) and the Department of Health and Social Care relating to Exercise Cygnus between October 2016 and 24 May 2020. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England 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, under the FOIA, to the request. 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
16 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the student records of Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. The Board of Trustees of the University of London relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is President Tsai’s personal data and that disclosing it otherwise than under the FOIA would have breached the GDPR principles. The University was therefore entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0286 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View London
16 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the BBC’s broadcast time for political parties. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
16 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about council tax calculations. The Council responded, refusing to supply the information under the following sections of the FOIA: section 21 – information accessible by other means; section 22 – information intended for future publication; and section 14 – vexatious. The complainant was not satisfied that the Council was entitled to determine the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council has correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Blackburn with Darwen Council
15 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Home Office
15 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence seeking copies of ‘Defence Air Safety Occurrence Reports’ filed by air traffic control personnel at RAF Wittering for the period November 2014 to March 2018. The MOD refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD cannot rely on section 14(1) as a basis to refuse to comply with this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Defence