4 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested evidence held by the council which led to an assessment of land being changed in the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Draft Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA). The council argues that no information is held relating to the change. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities the council is correct to state that it holds no further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request. Regulation 12(4)(a) therefore applies. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
4 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to matters he had raised that he understood were being investigated by the Home Office. The Home Office had failed to respond to the request at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office failed to respond to the request within the statutory timeframe and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
4 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a particular penalty charge notice (“PCN”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Lewisham (“the Council”) appropriately applied the exemption at section 40(2) -Personal information – to withhold one element of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0244 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Lewisham Council
4 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust (the “Trust”) a report by Dr David Taylor from 2005. The Trust refused to provide the information, citing the exemptions at sections 36, 31 and 38 but later withdrew its reliance on section 31. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 38 is not engaged in relation to this information. She finds that section 36 is engaged but that the public interest favours the release of the requested information. The Trust also failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and breached section 10(1).
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• With reference to the highlighted copy provided by the Trust, release the requested report with the exception of the following lines containing personal data –
The highlighted parts of the last three lines on page 9;
The highlighted parts of the first 7 lines on page 10;
T
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36; FOI 38
View Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust
3 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to a method or tender statement for a contract regarding the collection, kennelling and disposal of stray dogs. Bury Council withheld the information on the grounds of section 43(2) – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bury Council has correctly cited section 43(2) and that the balance of public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Bury Council
3 Aug 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a number of requests for information regarding penalty charge notices for Mersey Tolls. The Commissioner’s decision is that Halton Borough Council failed to respond to some requests within twenty working days and therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As the requests have either been answered or superseded by subsequent requests, the Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Halton Council
3 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Business Services Organisation (BSO) regarding the weighting of a GP Practice’s patient list for the purpose of payments for general medical services. The BSO refused to disclose the information, citing section 43(2) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the BSO has correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA to the requested information.
3. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0262 Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
3 Aug 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested ecological information relating to Claverham Community College from the Department for Education (the “DfE”). The DfE initially refused to provide the information under Regulation 12(5)(g) – protection of the environment. During the Commissioner’s investigation the DfE reconsidered the request and disclosed the information because it believed the public interest was, by that time, weighted in favour of disclosure. Having been asked by the complainant to investigate the position at the time of the request, the Commissioner has determined that the DfE correctly cited Regulation 12(5)(g) and that the public interest then favoured maintaining the exception. Consequently, the Commissioner has concluded that the DfE did not breach Regulation 5(2). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(g); EIR 5(2)
View Department for Education
3 Aug 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about penalty charge notices for Mersey Tolls. The Commissioner’s decision is that Halton Borough Council is entitled to rely upon the exemption at section 12(1) and has, during the course of the investigation, complied with its duty under section 16 of the FOIA. However, it breached section 10(1) in responding to the complainant outside of the statutory time periods. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Halton Council
31 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence sent between the Chair and the clerk. Fleggburgh Parish Council initially issued a fees notice before refusing the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the Parish Council was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. As the Parish Council failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days, it breached section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
30 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Parkside Surgery, Alfreton (“the surgery”) about additional hours of work, claimed for by two of the surgery’s partners. The surgery, which had previously provided him with some related information, refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA, and the surgery was correct to refuse to respond. The Commissioner does not require the surgery to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
30 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department regarding a grievance process. The Department refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 40(2) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department of Finance
30 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Council in relation to the interest expressed by business in locating within a business park, which is the proposed use for land being redeveloped by the Council. The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing regulations 12(4)(b) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR as a basis for non-disclosure.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to the requested information in parts 1 and 2 of the request, however it has incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to part 3 of the request.
3. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a fresh response to the complainant which does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) in respect of part 3 of the request.
4. The Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making wr
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Mid Sussex District Council
30 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the status of the licensing review into a particular casino, and data on other licensing reviews that are ongoing or have concluded in 2018. The Gambling Commission provided some information within the scope of the request. However, it refused to provide the remainder of the requested information relying on the exemptions at section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement) and section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is the information requested in part f) 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 requested in part e) is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2). The Information Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1); FOI 40(2)
View Gambling Commission
29 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the procedures and policies of Sussex Police for retaining body worn video camera records against their possible future use for evidential purposes. Sussex Police acknowledged that there had then been considerable delays in providing the information requested for which they apologised. The Commissioner decided that Sussex Police had complied with section 1(1) (general right of access) FOIA when dealing with part 1 of the request and with section 12(1) (cost of compliance) FOIA when refusing part 2 of the request. The Commissioner decided that Sussex Police had breached section 16(1) (advice and assistance) FOIA for part 2 of the request but that no further remedy was now feasible. She therefore did not require Sussex Police to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Sussex Police
29 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific recruitment exercise run by Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’). The Trust released information relevant to two parts of the request. It withheld the information requested in a third part – copies of application forms - under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considers this to be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Trust is entitled to withhold the information the complainant has requested in part (i) of their request under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The information can be categorised as the personal data of third persons and disclosing it would be unlawful. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
29 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Hastings Borough Council (the council) relating to proposals for the management of surface water drainage at a particular caravan park site (the site). Whilst the council provided some information to the complainant, both in its initial response to his request, and during the Commissioner’s investigation, it withheld the remaining information relevant to the request under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) in respect of all that information which has been withheld in response to the request. However, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to issue a refusal notice to the complainant within 20 working days of receipt of the request. Furthermore, as the council failed to communicate that information which the complainant was entitled to receive in response to his request within the prescribed tim
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Hastings Borough Council
29 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Infrastructure (“the Department”) regarding the proposed experimental trial in Belfast of taxis in bus lanes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department has provided all the information it holds within the scope of the complainant’s request, however it has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Department for Infrastructure (Northern Ireland)
29 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Hastings Borough Council (the council) relating to proposals for the erection of signage and fencing on a local caravan park site (the site). Whilst the council provided some information to the complainant, both at the internal review stage, and during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it advised that the remainder of the information was either not held, or was exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) in respect of all that information which has been withheld in response to the request. In addition, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council was correct when it advised the complainant that it did not hold part of the information that he had requested. However, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to issue
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 14(3); EIR 5(2)
View Hastings Borough Council
29 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a Land Stability Site Management Plan (detailed plan) submitted to Hastings Borough Council (the council) by a local caravan park (the site). Whilst the council provided some information to the complainant, both at the internal review stage, and during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it advised that the remainder of the information was either not held, or was exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) in respect of all that information which has been withheld in response to the request. In addition, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council was correct when it advised the complainant that it did not hold part of the information that he had requested. However, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to is
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 14(3); EIR 5(2)
View Hastings Borough Council
29 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of the responses to a public consultation on the Digital Services Tax. The public authority withheld the requested information relying on section 35(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a).
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View HM Treasury
29 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The applicant has requested the cost of obtaining and re-using a reproduction of an image held by the Imperial War Museum. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Imperial War Museum (IWM) has provided an appropriate quote to the applicant in line with the charging mechanism set out at regulation 15 of RPSI. Where a recommendation notice has been served, the public sector body shall - decide what action, if any, it will take as a result of the recommendation and the date by which any such action will be taken; and notify the Commissioner and the complainant of its decision and the reasons for it.
Action referred to may include (but is not limited to) reaffirming, varying or substituting any response by the public sector body to the complainant’s request for re-use; or taking no further steps. The IWM must confirm this in writing within 20 working days following the date of receipt of this recommendation notice.
Exemptions cited: RPSI 15
View Imperial War Museum
29 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the MoJ about child support data. The MoJ has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The MoJ must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
29 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Surrey Heath Borough Council (‘SHBC’) information relating to a planning application. SHBC initially cited regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information) to withhold the requested information. It subsequently revised its position, saying that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, SHBC does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Surrey Heath Borough Council
28 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about rent and repairs at a particular council-owned property. The London Borough of Hounslow relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information which, it stated, was the personal data of a third party. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough has correctly relied upon section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View London Borough of Hounslow
28 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information contained in emails to and from the Chief Executive of Ministry of Justice’s HM Prison and Probation Service regarding the then impending release on parole of a named high profile offender. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice has partly complied with the request in its application of the section 36(2) FOIA exemption (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). She decided that, to comply with FOIA fully, the Ministry of Justice must disclose the information defined in the confidential annex to this Notice. This annex has been sent in confidence to the Ministry of Justice only. The Commissioner requires the Ministry of Justice to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information specified in the confidential annex to this Notice. 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 Commissio
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Ministry of Justice
28 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a planning application. Cornwall council withheld in the information in its entirety citing regulation 12(4)(b) – cost of compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cornwall Council has appropriately relied on section 12(4)(b) to withhold the requested information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However it breached regulation 14 in failing to provide a refusal notice within the required timescales. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14
View Cornwall Council
28 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, Cornwall Council has located all the information held in scope of the request. However it breached Regulation 5(2) in failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Cornwall Council
28 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Leicestershire Police relating to tribunal decisions arising from penalty charge notices issued by local authorities in relation to police vehicles. Leicestershire Police denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Leicestershire Police does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Leicestershire Police
28 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of planning pre-application advice. Eden District Council (the council) refused the request under regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR – Interests of the person who provided the information to the public authority. During the Commissioner’s investigations, the council amended its position and provided the information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached regulation 5(2) of the FOIA as it provided the information outside the required 20 working days, following receipt of the request. As the information has been provided, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
27 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a two part request for information about draft regulations relating to pharmacists. The Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) refused the information under section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA – information relating to the formulation or development of government policy. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the DHSC also applied section 36 – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs, to a limited amount of the information. It later withdrew its reliance on this exemption. However it also stated that other information was being withheld under section 21 – accessible to the applicant by other means and section 40(2) – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) in respect of only some of the information to which it was applied. The DHSC also breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to provide the information it tried to apply section 36 to, only to later withdraw its reliance on th
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 35; FOI 40
View Department of Health and Social Care
27 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on specific files held by the public authority relating to the UK constitution, including the arrangements for referendums about devolution in 1997 in Scotland and Wales. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OSSS has appropriately applied the exemptions at FOIA section 35 – Formulation of government policy etc., section 28 – Relations within the United Kingdom and section 40(2) – Personal information. However, in regard to documentation engaging the section 35 exemption she finds that the public interest favours disclosure. She finds the public interest favours withholding the material engaging section 28. In respect of the exclusion at section 35(3) in relation to section 35(1)(c) – the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers, the Commissioner is not satisfied by the OSSS’s consideration of the public interest test. She finds that the balance of the public interest requires the OSSS to either confirm or deny holding information relat
Exemptions cited: FOI 28; FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 35(1)(b); FOI 40(2)
View Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland
27 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the cost of card payment facilities. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provide some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 41(1). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Ministry of Justice
27 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about searches made on one of its IT systems from the Crown Prosecution Service (the ‘CPS’). The CPS provided some information and advised that the remainder was exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 40(2) (Personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in respect of the whole request, the CPS should have neither confirmed nor denied holding any information by virtue of section 40(5A) of the FOIA. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0258 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
27 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information tender documentation regarding the commissioning of the Alcohol Diversion Scheme for Gwent. Gwent Police withheld the information requested under section 43 of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, Gwent Police disclosed some information but maintained that the remaining information was exempt under sections 43 and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43 is not engaged but Gwent Police has correctly applied section 40(2) to the names of the evaluation panel. The Commissioner requires Gwent Police to disclose the remaining withheld information, with the exception of the names of the evaluation panel members.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
View Gwent Police
27 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The applicant has requested expert reports related to a hearing in 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that the General Medical Council (GMC) has correctly applied section 31 of the FOIA to the withheld information, and that the public interest lies in favour of maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0261 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View GMC
27 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information relating to the refurbishment of his residential address. The London Borough of Hackney disclosed information in response. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no further recorded information is likely to be held. However, the Council breached section 10(1) by responding outside the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View London Borough of Hackney
24 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Queensbury Tunnel from the Department for Transport (“DfT”). The DfT refused to provide this information citing section 14(1) – vexatious request. The public authority later suggested to the Commissioner that the request could also be considered an EIR request and cited Regulation 12(4)(b) – manifestly unreasonable request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request falls under the EIR and that Regulation 12(4)(b) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the DfT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Issue a fresh response regarding this request that does not rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Department for Transport
24 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant, on behalf of the BBC, has requested inspection reports associated with Toddbrook Reservoir in Derbyshire. The Canal & River Trust (CRT) released the reports, having redacted some of the information in them under regulation 12(5)(a) (international relations, defence, national security or public safety) and regulation 13(1)(personal data). CRT considers the public interest favours maintaining these exceptions. The complainant disputes CRT’s reliance on regulation 12(5)(a) to withhold information falling within the scope of her request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: CRT is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR to withhold some of the information the complainant has requested, and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Commissioner does not require CRT to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Canal and River Trust
23 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Devon County Council (“the Council”) regarding the welfare of pupils and allegations of abuse at a specific school. The Council considered that the scope of the request covered corporate reports; that is, reports written by the Council, as well as information that may be held on individual case files. The Council stated that it did not hold any corporate reports. It also stated that it was unable to determine, within the appropriate cost limit, whether any information was held on individual case files, and therefore refused that part of the request under section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council interpreted the scope of the request correctly. She is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold any corporate reports. She has also determined that the Council was entitled to refuse the remainder of the request under section 12(2) of the FOIA and that the Council complied with its duty to p
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Devon County Council
23 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
1. The complainant has requested information from Southern Water (“SW”) relating to Ofwat’s notice of its proposal to impose a penalty on the public authority. SW refused to provide the requested information citing Regulations 12(5)(a), 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e), 12(4)(e), 12(5)(d), 12(4)(c) and 13(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that Regulation 12(5)(a) is not engaged with regard to the list of wastewater sites and that the information has been inappropriately withheld. However, she has found that SW has correctly cited Regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(4)(c) and that it is not in the public interest to release this information. The Commissioner has determined that SW does not hold any further information within the scope of this request and did not breach Regulation 5(1). However, she has determined that SW breached Regulations 5(2) and 9(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose the list of SW’s 365
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(c); EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 9(2)
View Southern Water
22 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Human Tissue Authority (HTA) on incidents reported to in 2018 under the category of ‘release of wrong body’. The HTA release information on numbers but withheld two incident reports on the basis of section 31(1)(g) leading to 31(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HTA has correctly engaged the section 31 exemption and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Human Tissue Authority
22 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a tendering process. South Lakeland District Council did not comply with the request, citing section 12(1) (Cost compliance exceeds the appropriate limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Lakeland District Council has not applied section 12(1) of the FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner requires South Lakeland District Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response, not citing section 12(1) of the FOIA. South Lakeland District 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 12(1)
View South Holland District Council
22 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about children removed from the school roll from Northumberland County Council. The Council disclosed some of the information but refused to disclose figures fewer than 6, citing section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner is not satisfied that the withheld information constitutes personal data, and therefore section 40(2) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld figures.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Northumberland County Council
22 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested legal advice from Knowsley Council (“the Council”) about Merseyside Dogs Home. The Council provided some information, but withheld the remainder under section 42(1) of the FOIA, stating that it was legally privileged. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is legally privileged, and that the balance of the public interest favours the exemption being maintained. She is therefore satisfied that it was withheld correctly under section 42(1). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0252 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Knowsley Council
22 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the cost of advertisements during the World Economic Forum at Davos. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for International Trade (“DIT”) is not entitled to rely on section 41(1)(a) FOIA (Information provided in confidence) but is entitled to rely on the exemption at section 43(2 FOIA (Commercial interests). In failing to specify all the exemptions on which it later relied, at the time of its responses to the complainant, DIT breached section 17(1)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 41; FOI 43(2)
View Department for International Trade
22 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding an investigation. West Yorkshire Police (“WYP”) would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any information by virtue of sections 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(5)(B) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP has applied section 30(3) appropriately to the requested information. WYP is not required to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0238 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View West Yorkshire Police
22 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of email chains relating to an incident that took place at a maternity centre. NHS Wirral Clinical Commissioning Group provided some information, but relied on sections 21 (reasonably accessible) and 40 (third party personal data) of the FOIA respectively to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG has identified all the information it holds within the scope of the request. She also considers that the CCG is entitled to apply sections 21 and 40(2) in the manner that it has. However, the CCG failed to identify all the relevant information it held and failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days. It thus breached sections 10 and 17 of the FOIA respectively. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 40(2)
22 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a Policy Equality Statement. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, citing section 22 (information intended for future publication) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office incorrectly applied section 22 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0253 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Home Office
21 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked Worcestershire County 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. While dealing with the request the Council provided the complainant with some relevant information. It also advised the complainant that it did not hold certain other information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Worcestershire County Council has complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. She has also decided that the Council has contravened the requirements of Regulation 5(2) by failing to provide the complainant with information relevant to his request within the statutory twenty working days compliance period. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council provided the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance under Regulation 9 of the EIR. The Commissioner considers that the Council has not contravened Regulation 14
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Worcestershire County Council