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
14 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a payment made to a company and the information associated with that work. The council provided some information however it refused to provide other information on the basis that the exception in Regulation 12(4)(d) applies. On review it upheld its decision. The Commissioner’s decision is that council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(d) to withhold a copy of a draft report, however, it was correct to apply it to withhold correspondence and information associated with the report. She has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulations 14(2) and 14(4). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. to disclose a copy of the final draft report to the complainants.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 14(4)
View Central Bedfordshire Council
14 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office about the Covid-19 daily 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
14 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to civil litigation proceedings that have been taken against Birmingham City Council (the council) within a specified time period. The council refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it would exceed the cost limits to do so (section 12(1) of the FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA in relation to this request. Nevertheless, by failing to demonstrate that it had properly considered its advice and assistance obligations, the council has breached section 16 of the FOIA. However, due to the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Birmingham City Council
14 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the process by which the National Grid Electricity System Operator (NG) determines the best location for the connections to be made from a number of proposed offshore windfarms to the transmission network. These are significant infrastructure projects. The NG provided a limited amount of information but ultimately withheld the majority of the remaining information under the exceptions provided by regulations 12(4)(d) – material in the course of completion, 12(5)(a) – public safety, 12(5)(d) – confidentiality of proceedings 12(5)(e) –confidentiality of commercial information and 13(1) third party personal data. In addition to these exceptions a limited amount of that information was also withheld under regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications. Finally some elements of the request were refused under regulation 12(4)(a) on the basis that the information was not held. NG initially applied regulations 12(4)(c) – request formulated i
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 12(5)(e)
14 Sep 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
14 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of quotes with regards to a contract for works to be carried out. Keelby Parish Council (the council) failed to disclose the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not provide the information requested within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with actual copies of the original quotes, as per his request. The council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
11 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Elmbridge Borough Council information in relation to legal advice that the Council received from external counsel. The Council confirmed that it held the information requested, however, it decided to withhold it citing regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Council stated that the withheld information was covered by Legal Professional Privilege (LPP).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the information under the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – adversely affects the course of justice – and that the balance of the public interest favours the exception being maintained.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps to comply with this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Elmbridge Borough Council
11 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a tendering process from Harlow Council (“the Council”). The Council provided some information outside the FOIA, which has not been considered in this notice. It provided other information under the FOIA, but made redactions under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data, section 41(1) of the FOIA – information provided in confidence – and/or section 43(2) of the FOIA – commercial interests. It also withheld some information in its entirety, under the latter two exemptions. The complainant wished the Commissioner to consider the information withheld under sections 41(1) and/or section 43(2). The Commissioner was also asked to consider whether certain correspondence, considered by the Council to fall outside the scope of the request, should have been considered for disclosure in response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the information identified at paragraph 18 of this notice, und
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 41(1)
11 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Ofcom’s assessment of a complaint about the BBC that he had submitted to it. Ofcom’s position is that it does not hold the information the complainant is seeking. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities Ofcom does not hold the requested information and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Ofcom to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ofcom
11 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (“DHSC”) regarding alleged attempts to introduce measures under the emergency powers of the Coronavirus Bill, concerning abortions at home. The DHSC responded and refused to comply with the request as it did not consider it as a valid FOI request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was valid for the purposes of section 8 of the FOIA. However, as the DHSC has subsequently issued a fresh response, the Commissioner does not require the DHSC to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Department of Health and Social Care
11 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to attendance by the Secretary of State for Health at ‘Christmas drinks’ on a particular date. DHSC refused to disclose the requested information under section 40(2) FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) FOIA was applied incorrectly to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information DHSC has identified as falling within the scope of the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0358 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department of Health and Social Care
11 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about correspondence between the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) and two external organisations, between February and April 2020, relating to the Covid-19 outbreak. By the date of this notice DCMS had not issued a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DCMS has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable timeframe and therefore finds that the DCMS has breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DCMS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. The DCMS 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 17
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
10 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an alleged investigation from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny holding any information, citing the exemptions at sections 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) and 40(5) (Personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 40(5) to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
10 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with a report they had produced for Historic England (‘HE’). They subsequently withdrew two parts of the request. HE categorised the remaining two parts of the request as manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). It refused to comply with these parts. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information requested in parts 1 and 4 of the request is not environmental information and HE was incorrect to handle these parts under the EIR. Parts 1 and 4 of the complainant’s request cannot be categorised as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires HE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a response to parts 1 and 4 of the complainant’s request that complies with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Historic England
9 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The applicant has requested information relating to a complaint made to the Architects Registration Board (ARB). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, ARB does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken by ARB.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Architects Registration Board
9 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on staff dismissals from the University of Exeter (‘the University’). The University released some information within the scope of the complainant’s request and has withheld some under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considers this information is the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The University is not obliged to comply with the specifics of the complainant’s request under section 40(2) of the FOIA as to do so would disclose the personal data of third persons and would not be lawful. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The University of Exeter
9 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested monitoring information from the Office of the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner (“the OPCC”) about community grant awards. The OPCC directed the complainant to information which it published on its website about the grants that it awards. It also disclosed a substantial amount of information. However, it refused to disclose some information on the grounds that it was exempt under sections 31 (law enforcement), 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), 40 (personal information) and 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The complainant disputed the application of the exemptions and also believed that the OPCC held further information which it had not disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the OPCC does not hold any further information beyond what has already been identified in the course of responding to this request. The Commissioner also finds that the OPCC was entitled to withhold inform
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 31; FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 43
9 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Highways England Company Limited (“Highways England”) about the Asset Support Contract, pre April 2019 the requirements for the contractor to follow are set out in Annexe 23 of the ASC contract. The Commissioner’s decision is that Highways England 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. As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require Highways England to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Highway Insurance Company Limited
9 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the General Optical Council (“the GOC”) for a copy of its Register of Interests for the GOC council members. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GOC 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 GOC to respond to complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View General Optical Council
9 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested disclosure of fees paid by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in relation to a court case.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (“the Ombudsman”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Ombudsman 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 The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
9 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information about vehicle ownership figures withing a local area. The Commissioner’s decision is that Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DVLA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. The DVLA must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Transport
8 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of an orchard planting plan which he believes Sewards End Parish Council (‘the Parish Council’) holds. The Parish Council disclosed a copy of the only planting plan it said it held, in response to the request. However, the complainant believed that it held another, earlier version of the orchard planting plan, which it had not disclosed. The Commissioner is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Parish Council has disclosed to the complainant all the information it holds that falls within the scope of the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0274 struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
8 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Plymouth City Council (“the Council”) relating to pest control visits. The Council refused the request under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Plymouth City Council
8 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about speed camera criteria from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Derbyshire (the “OPCC”). The OPCC 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 OPCC does not hold the information, however, the OPCC breached section 10(1) in providing a late response. No steps are required.
After issuing this decision notice it was brought to the Commissioner’s attention that the OPCC had written to the complainant on 8 January 2020. It had advised him he should contact Derbyshire County Council as they have responsibility for the issues raised.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
8 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a serious pollution incident which resulted in a large number of fish being killed on the River Sheppey in Somerset in August 2019. The Environment Agency (EA) provided the information requested in one part of the request. However it went on to advise the complainant that its investigation was still ongoing and refused the rest of the request under regulation 12(5)(b) – adverse affect to the course of justice. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the EA also explained that it now considered the requested information was not held. This was on the basis that the specific details that had been requested were, in effect, the outcomes of the ongoing criminal investigation and therefore these details would not exist until the investigation was complete. It therefore also refused the request under regulation 12(4)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that as the EA’s investigation had not resolved the issues to which the out
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Environment Agency
8 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Powys Teaching Health Board (“the Board”) about the training courses that had been attended by certain named members of staff. The Board withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA: third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Board correctly determined that the requested information was third party personal data and that there was no lawful basis for disclosing it. She is therefore satisfied that section 40(2) of the FOIA was correctly applied. However, since the Board did not provide its response to the request within the statutory time limit of twenty working days, it breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Board to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Powys Teaching Health Board
7 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from Northern Ireland Screen (“NI Screen”) regarding funding for certain film productions. NI Screen disclosed some information in response to the complainant’s request, however it refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 43(2) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that NI Screen has correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner has also decided that NI Screen has breached section 17(1) of the FOIA.
3. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 43
View Northern Ireland Office
7 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from South Holland District Council (“the Council”), in relation to the valuation of a property. The Council provided a report but withheld some information from it under certain exemptions of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, since the report related to the complainant’s property at the time, all the information that was requested is the complainant’s own personal data. She therefore finds that the Council was not obliged to supply any information under the FOIA, as any information which the Council holds within the scope of the request would attract the absolute exemption at Section 40(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1)
View South Holland District Council
7 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (“the DHSC”) about its tender process for its track and trace app. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC 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 DHSC to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
7 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police about noise level testing. Sussex Police has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. Sussex Police must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sussex Police
7 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about meetings related to him and demographic information about children taken into care. The London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham provided information in respect of one element of the request, stated that it did not hold information in respect of two other elements and refused the remaining element which it estimated would exceed the appropriate limit to comply with. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough has reasonably estimated that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and was therefore entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse it. However, she considers that the London Borough failed to provide the complainant with reasonable advice and assistance to help him refine his request within the cost limit and thus breached its section 16 duty. She also finds that, in failing to issue a refusal notice or comply with its section 1(1) duty within 20 working days, the London Boroug
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
7 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a multipart request for information relating to the cost of repairing damage to the road network, typically caused by road traffic accidents. The complainant pursued complaints in respects of request 1, 2 and 5. In respect of request 1 Highways England Company Ltd (HE) provided the complainant with links to where the requested information could be found. However during the course of the investigation HE identified further relevant information. It explained that the complainant had previously been provided with that information and that therefore it would be exempt under section 21, which the Commissioner accepts. In respect of request 2, HE originally refused the request under section 43 on the basis that it was commercially sensitive. However this was based on a misinterpretation of the request. Once the scope of the request had been clarified during the Commissioner’s investigation, it was established that the requested information was not held. In respect of req
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View Highway Insurance Company Limited
4 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence including text messages, emails, letters and notes between a named councillor and person living at a specified address. The Council provided the complainant with some information but redacted parts of that information in reliance on Regulations 12(5)(f) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Rother District Council has complied with the requirements of Regulation 5(1) of the EIR by providing the complainant with information it holds relevant to his request. She has also decided that the Council is entitled to withhold information which is the personal data of third parties under the provision of Regulation 13 of the EIR. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0280 Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(1)
View Rother District Council
4 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Norwich Anaesthetic Group. The Commissioner’s decision is that Norfolk & Norwich University NHS Trust (“the Trust”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. The Trust must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
3 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Council regarding a specific planning application. The Council disclosed some information to him, however it stated that it did not hold the remaining information within the scope of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the complainant’s request other than that which has already been provided to the complainant. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
3 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a deed of assent for a particular property. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Huntingdonshire District Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Huntingdonshire District Council
3 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Manchester City Council information relating to the Great Ancoats Street upgrade work. 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.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Manchester City Council
3 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the findings of an investigation. Greater Manchester Police stated that information was held, but was exempt from disclosure under sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(b), and 40(2). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, GMP stated to the Commissioner that it was uncertain of the parameters of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP has failed to provide appropriate advice and assistance (under section 16) to the complainant so as to enable them to clarify their request, and further, has breached section 10. The Commissioner requires GMP to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant so as to enable them to clarify their request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16
View Greater Manchester Police
3 Sep 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Council regarding a tragic incident which occurred at the Greenvale Hotel in Cookstown in March 2019. The Council stated that it did not hold some of the requested information, and refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 31 and 38 of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 31 to the withheld information. As this applies to the entirety of the withheld information, the Commissioner has not considered the Council’s application of section 38 of the FOIA.
3. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Mid Sussex District Council
2 Sep 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 17
View Cabinet Office
2 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Lancashire County Council (“the Council”) information regarding sick pay extensions for Council employees. The Council initially stated that this information could not be disclosed because of the way it was recorded. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council issued a refusal notice to the complainant which cited section 12 of the FOIA (cost limit).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with this request. However the Commissioner also finds that the Council has not complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16 (advice and assistance) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Provide advice and assistance to the complainant on refining his request.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Lancashire County Council
2 Sep 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (“the DHSC”) about its targets, from 2010 onwards, for reducing NHS fraud. The Department of Health responded, but, initially, neither provided the information nor explained whether it was held. After an internal review, it stated that the requested information was not held. The complainant has accepted that the information was not held, but was dissatisfied with the DHSC’s handling of her request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC breached the requirements of section 1(1) of the FOIA in responding to the request. Since the information is not held, the Commissioner does not require the DHSC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department of Health and Social Care
2 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the council’s process for reporting decisions of the ICO, planning committee and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the LGSCO) to its councillors and committees. The council said that there was no set process that could be disclosed but provided a number of links to the websites of the ICO and the LGSCO where relevant information could be accessed. It applied section 21 on the basis that the information was already available to the complainant via these means. On review it provided a link to the records of its planning committee meetings and to its Audit and Governance committee. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 21 to refuse the request for information included within the links which were already available to the complainant. She has however decided that the council was not correct to rely on section 21 regarding information falling within the scope of the request about its Scrutiny an
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 21
View York City Council
1 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recorded information from North Tyneside Council which concerns the completed Links Road Project at Whitley Bay. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Tyneside Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA by providing the complainant with the information it holds relevant to his request. She has also decided that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with its response within twenty working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View North Tyneside Council
1 Sep 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a proposed bridge over a railway line to replace a level crossing. The council refused the request on the basis that Regulation 12(4)(d) and Regulation 12(5)(e) applies. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(e) to some the cost elements of the withheld information but was not correct to apply it to the withheld information as a whole. She has also decided that the council was not correct to rely upon Regulation 12(4)(d) to withhold the information. She has also decided that the council failed to comply with the time requirements for responding to requests and to requests for the decision to be reconsidered set out in Regulations 5(2) and 11(4). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose all of the withheld information to the complainant other than the options costings information, and the information
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Guildford Borough Council
28 Aug 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two requests for information relating to the provision of continuing health care for patients with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI). The first was for the job description of the officer responsible for commissioning such care and the second for the standard contract used when commissioning the care. NHS West Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) has withheld the job description under section 40 on the basis that it is the personal data of the post holder. It did eventually provide a copy of the relevant ‘standard contract’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG is not entitled to withhold the job description under section 40. To avoid the risk of disclosing any personal data relating to the post holder in the public version of this notice, a confidential identifying the specific role has been provided to the CCG and the complainant. The Commissioner finds that the CCG has now provided all the information relating to the standard contract. However by di
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View West Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group
27 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted eleven separate requests to Morecambe Town Council (“the Council”) between 5 and 29 June 2019. The requests each related to various information. The Council initially refused ten of the requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council issued a fresh response to the complainant within which it refused all eleven of these requests under section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost limit) because it estimated that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely upon section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost limit) as its basis to refuse these requests and that it has not complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16 of the FOIA. The Council also failed to issue a response to request K within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Cou
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16
27 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about its contacts with The Queen’s grandchildren, Zara Tindall MBE and Peter Phillips, about a named businessman. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny holding information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 40(5B) (personal information) of the FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
27 Aug 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. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government refused to confirm or deny holding any relevant information as it 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 MHCLG 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government