27 Aug 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made four requests concerning planning and parking matters. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council noted that all the relevant information it held was already reasonably accessible and therefore relied on section 21 to withhold that information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have dealt with requests 1, 2 and 3 under the EIR, but would have been entitled to rely on regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR to refuse to provide information which was already publicly accessible. In respect of request 4, the Council was entitled to rely on section 21 in the manner that it has done. On the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no additional information within the scope of any of the requests. However, in failing to issue a refusal notice in respect of any of the requests within 20 working days, the Council breached regulation 14 of the EIR in respect of requests 1,2 and 3 and section 17 of the FOIA in respect of request 4. The Commissioner does not require
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5(1); EIR 6(1)(b); FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 21
View Doncaster Council
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 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
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 Department for International Trade 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 DIT 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 Department for International Trade
25 Aug 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a misconduct hearing. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Wales Police was entitled to withhold the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. However in providing a response outside of statutory time periods, it 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 South Wales Police
24 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report with supporting evidence, compiled as a result of a ‘whistleblowing’ concern submitted to London South Bank University (‘the University’). The University relied on the FOIA exemptions provided under section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), section 40(1)(applicant’s personal data) and section 40(2)(third person personal data) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The University is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View London South Bank University
21 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report detailing the findings and outcomes of an Invited Service Review of the Trauma and Orthopaedics surgical service at Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust withheld the information, citing the exemptions under sections 36, 40, and 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 36(2)(b) of the FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Information Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
21 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (“PHSO”) information relating to one of the public authority’s web pages, an employment tribunal judgment, staff disability and disability training. The PHSO refused to provide the information, citing section 14(1) of the FOIA – vexatious request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request as vexatious. The Commissioner does not require the PHSO to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0256 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
20 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about an email address. The Home Office has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
20 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a ‘stop check’ order from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to comply with the request advising that it considered it was vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not vexatious. The Commissioner requires the MPS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response under the FOIA without relying on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Metropolitan Police Service
19 Aug 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 the Health Secretary's attendance at the opening of an NHS Nightingale Hospital.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. However since the DHSC has since issued a response to this request, the Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
19 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of ‘Collections’ examinations in Mathematics from Worcester College Oxford, together with the related mark schemes, solutions and other connected information. The Commissioner decided that, in refusing the request for the information it held by relying on the section 43(2) (Commercial interests) FOIA exemption, Worcester College had complied with the legislation. The Commissioner required no steps to be taken. The Commissioner required no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0271 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
19 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the evidence held by the Charity Commission relating to the Presidents Club Charitable Trust case. The Charity Commission has withheld the information under section 31, section 40(2), and section 41 of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(c), and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Information Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Charity Commission
19 Aug 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the proposed route for the English Coast Path through Mistley, which lies on the Stour Estuary in Essex. Natural England (NE) provided a limited amount of information which was already in the public domain. However it went on to withhold the rest of the information under the exceptions provided by regulation 12(5)(d) – confidentiality of proceedings, and 12(5)(f) – voluntary supply of information. During the Commissioner’s investigation it became apparent that NE did not fact hold some of the information that had been requested. The complainant has also complained about the length of time it took NE to conduct an internal review of its handling of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NE is entitled to rely on the exception provided at 12(5)(d) to withhold the information to which it has been applied. It is also entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(f) to withhold the majority of the information to which that exception has
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 14
View Natural England
19 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Southern Health & Social Care Trust (“the Trust”) regarding certain breast assessment services. The Trust provided some information, in response to parts 2-6 of the complainant’s request, however it refused to disclose the remaining requested information, citing section 12(1) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to the relevant parts of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Southern Health and Social Care Trust
19 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of a report, and associated information, regarding a communication campaign in Ukraine undertaken by Strategic Communication Laboratories. The MOD refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis section 26(3) (defence) and section 27(4) (international relations) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to rely on section 27(4) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information and in the circumstances of the case the public interest in favours maintaining this exemption. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0305 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
18 Aug 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a variety of data related to ethnicity and disabilities. The Environment Agency refused part of the request because it estimated that the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. In relation to the remainder of the request, it provided some data but also withheld some, which it believed would reveal personal data contrary to GDPR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA has correctly relied on section 12 to refuse the part of the request that it has done. However, she also finds that it failed to comply with its duty, under section 16 of the FOIA, to provide reasonable advice and assistance to help the complainant refine his request. It was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold some of the information but has applied this incorrectly to some of the information. Finally, she finds that the EA failed to identify all the information it held within the scope of the request and failed to issue a refusal notice relying on sect
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View Environment Agency
18 Aug 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (“the DfE”) concerning figures of children of different ethnicities who were born into care at both a national level and a local level. The DfE provided suppressed data and redacted some figures lower than 10 at a national level, citing section 40 of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly withheld the information under section 40 of the FOIA but as it responded after 20 working days, it has breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken by the DfE.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View Department for Education
18 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about hunting activity around Skiddaw. The Lake District National Park Authority refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Authority should have dealt with the request under the EIR and that, as the request was not manifestly unreasonable, the Authority was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the Authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, under the EIR, to the request, which does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Lake District National Park Authority
18 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about specified emails. The Home Office has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Home Office
18 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding parking enforcement costs. The Commissioner’s decision is that Mid Suffolk District Council (the Council) breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it failed to provide the requested information within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. As the Council has now provided the information sought by the complainant, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Mid Suffolk District Council
18 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the PSNI in relation to the involvement of the National Crime Agency in its investigations. The PSNI refused to disclose the remaining requested information, citing section 12(1) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
18 Aug 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the effectiveness of government strategies for safeguarding vulnerable individuals from involvement in far-right and religious extremist threats. The Home Office confirmed that it held relevant information but it refused to disclose it, citing the exemptions at section 22 (Information intended for future publication), 24 (National security), 38 (Health and safety), 40 (Personal information) and 43 (Commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 22 and section 24 of the FOIA to refuse to disclose the requested information. However, by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days, the Home Office breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 22; FOI 24
View Home Office
17 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for emails sent to and from specified personal email addresses. The Cabinet Office refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has not demonstrated sufficient burden to engage section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to issue a fresh response that does not rely on section 14(1) of the Act. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
17 Aug 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence sent to or from the Infected Blood Policy Team at the Department for Health and Social Care during the month of October 2018. The Cabinet Office refused the request in reliance on the exemption at section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) to refuse the request. No steps are required. The Commissioner does however find that the Cabinet Office failed to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
17 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about crimes reported in (and in the grounds of) Royal Palaces from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS provided some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 31(1)(a)(b) (law enforcement), 24(1) (national security) and 38(1)(health and safety) of the FOIA. It also refused to confirm or deny whether any further information was held citing sections 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA, which was not contested by the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that none of the exemptions are engaged. She requires the MPS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31; FOI 38
View Metropolitan Police Service
17 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
As part of a wider request, the complainant has requested information on protection against radon gas that the ICO may have installed in its building to protect staff. The ICO relied on section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious request) to refuse to comply with this part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Part 6 of the complainant’s request can be categorised as a vexatious request under section 14(1) of the FOIA and the ICO is not obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/607/2021 under appeal. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0279 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Information Commissioner
17 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about contracts. High Speed Two Limited (HS2 Ltd) refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The majority of the requested information can be categorised as environmental information under the EIR. HS2 Ltd is not obliged to comply with the request for this information under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR as the request is manifestly unreasonable by virtue of cost. The public interest favours maintaining this exception. To the degree that any of the information within scope of the request is not environmental information, HS2 Ltd is not obliged to comply with the request for that information under section 12(1) of the FOIA. Regulation 9(1) of the EIR and section 16(1) of the FOIA, which concern advice and assistance, have not been breached. The Commissioner does not require HS2 Ltd to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
17 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the alleged investigation of a named police officer. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (the ‘IOPC’) refused to confirm or deny that the requested information was held, citing section 40(5B)(a)(i) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information in accordance with section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the IOPC to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
17 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of University spending in relation to The Open Championship 2019 held at Royal Portrush Golf Club. Despite the Commissioner’s intervention the University has failed to respond to the request. Accordingly the Commissioner’s decision is that the University has failed to comply with section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ulster University
17 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning enforcement matter. The Council provided some information, and withheld the remainder under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the request on the basis of regulation 13. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Powys County Council
14 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested an assessment report from the Rural Payments Agency (‘RPA’). The RPA’s position is that it does not hold the requested information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the complainant confirmed that he accepted that the RPA does not hold the information he requested. But he remains dissatisfied with how the RPA handled his request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: With regard to the matter of advice and assistance, the RPA did not breach regulation 9(1) of the EIR. The RPA complied with regulation 9(2) of the EIR because it provided the complainant with timely and adequate advice and assistance with regard to clarifying his request of 29 July 2019. With regard to the timeliness of any internal review, the RPA did not breach regulation 11(4) of the EIR as the complainant did not submit a request for a review to the RPA. The exception under regulation 12(4)(a) is engaged as the RPA did not hold the requested information at the time the complai
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14; EIR 9
View Rural Payments Agency
14 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Three Rivers District Council (‘the Council’) relating to policy, guidance, and training materials available to council officers who review penalty charge notices appeals and cancellations. The Council has failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires the council to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Three Rivers District Council
14 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Essex County Council (“the Council”) information about the Council’s decision-making process and enforcement action relating to a highway encroachment case. The Council disclosed some information in response to the request and withheld the remaining information under regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR. The Council also provided information which contained some redactions in accordance with regulations 12(3) and 13(1) (third party personal data) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to most of the withheld information. Where regulation 12(5)(b) was not engaged, the Council correctly applied regulations 12(3) and 13(1) to withhold the remaining information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2020/0268 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(3); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13(1)
View Essex County Council
12 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of objections made to an application for a voluntary strike-off from the company register. Companies House withheld the requested information and relied on sections 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Companies House has correctly applied section 41 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Companies House
12 Aug 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), including information from a named Judge’s personal file. The MoJ confirmed it held the requested information but refused to provide it, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information. However, she finds that the MoJ failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10(1) (time for compliance with request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/816/2021 refused. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0264 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
12 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information from Irby Upon Humber Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to the Council’s contract with IG Compliance Ltd, Council meeting minutes and other information. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with this request.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Issue a fresh response to the request which does not cite section 14(1) of the FOIA.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
12 Aug 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a variety of information relating to the student records of the current Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. The University of London refused the request, because it considered that answering the request in full would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that University has reasonably estimated that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. It is therefore entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request. However, she also finds that the University did not comply with its duty, under section 16 of the FOIA, to provide advice and assistance. Finally, the Commissioner finds that the University failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days and thus breached section 17(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0266 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
11 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to payments made by Great Dunham Parish Council to the SLCC. A substantive response to the request had not been provided by the date of this notice.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Great Dunham Parish Council (“the Parish Council”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires Great Dunham Parish Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Great Dunham Parish Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
11 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Bradford Metropolitan Council (“the council”) in relation to investigations into school placements over two academic years. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance) as its basis for refusing to comply with the request. It has also complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance in line with the requirements of section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
11 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to missing emails and attempts to recover them. Milton Keynes Council refused the request under section 14(2) of the FOIA – repeat request. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(2) of the FOIA is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response without relying on section 14(2) of the FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Milton Keynes Council
10 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of emails sent or received by the directors of The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust (the “Trust”) containing certain key words during a specified time frame. The Trust refused to provide the emails under section 36 and section 42 of the FOIA with the exception of one email. Later on the Trust also cited section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has cited section 36 appropriately and therefore the Trust need take no further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust
10 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police relating to a football match between Brighton & Hove Albion and Crystal Palace. Sussex Police refused the request on the grounds that compliance would exceed the cost limit under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The complainant reduced the scope of the request, but Sussex Police maintained its application of section 12(1) to the revised request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police is not entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse to comply with the revised request. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to issue a fresh response to the revised request which does not rely on section 12 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Sussex Police
10 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a property search request for information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Bedford Borough Council does not hold any information in scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Bedford Borough Council
10 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Maidstone Borough Council the name of the barrister who was representing the Council on a matter with the intention to initiate a judicial review procedure and some other circumstantial information relating to a planning appeal.
The Council provided an explanation but refused to disclose the name of the barrister under regulation 13 of the EIR as it considered it to be the personal data of a third party.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to withhold the name of the barrister under regulation 13(1) (personal information) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0267 struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Maidstone Borough Council
7 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all reports produced by the National Support Team for the Response to Sexual Violence in 2011/12. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 41 of the FOIA (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC has correctly engaged section 41(1) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Department of Health and Social Care
7 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cambridgeshire County Council (“the Council”) relating to its contractual relationship with Conduent Parking Enforcement Solutions Ltd.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• The Council must issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cambridgeshire County Council
6 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked Wychavon District Council (“the Council”) for information relating to two development sites, including any pre-application advice given to the promoters of the sites by Worcestershire County Council and Wychavon District Council. In its response to the complainant, the Council advised him that it did not hold any pre-application advice provided by Worcestershire County Council. It did however confirm that it holds other information which was being withheld in reliance on sections 41(1), 43(1) and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Worcestershire County Council has complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. She accepts that, on the balance of probability, the Council does not hold any pre-application advice given to it by Worcestershire County Council or any technical Highway studies. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council is entitled to withhold the information it does hold, which is relevant to the complainant’s request, in reli
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(1)
View Wychavon District Council
5 Aug 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the application information of a number of applicants for a senior vacancy at the council. The council applied section 40(2) to withhold the relevant information from disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 40(2) to withhold the information. She has however decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) in that it did not respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View Birmingham City Council