21 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the ‘Empowering mothers against grooming and radicalisation project’ funded by Kirklees Council. The Council provided some information falling within the scope of the request but refused the remainder, citing section 24(1)of the FOIA - safeguarding of national security. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kirklees Council is entitled to rely on section 24(1) to withhold the information. However she also finds that the Council breached section 1(1)a of the FOIA by failing to notify the complainant that it did not hold some of the requested information. As the Council has now rectified this, no steps are required to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 24
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
21 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a voluntary agreement entered into by six companies. The Pubs Code Adjudicator refused to supply any information within the scope of the request as it believed that to do so would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Adjudicator is not entitled to rely on 36(2)(c) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information as the exemption is not engaged. She finds that section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(b)(ii) are both engaged, but only in respect of some of the withheld information. Where the exemptions are engaged, the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions. The Adjudicator also failed to respond within 20 working days, thus breaching sections 10 and 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Adjudicator to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, the information identified in the confidential annex to this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36
View Pubs Code Adjudicator
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
21 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about ‘targeted individuals’. Sussex Police initially denied holding any information; however, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it partly revised its position. Whilst it clarified its position for part of the request, it maintained that it did not hold some of the requested information. Sussex Police also refused to confirm or deny whether it held the remaining information on the basis of section 31(3) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, no further information beyond that provided is held for parts 1-4 of the request. She concludes that Sussex Police had responded to part 5 of the request by virtue of its responses to parts 1-4 and that it was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) for this part of the request. The Commissioner has also concluded that section 31(3) is engaged in respect of parts 6-9 of the request, and that in all the circumstanc
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 31
View Sussex Police
21 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from South Leverton Parish Council (SLPC) information on work conducted by a voluntary Steering Group to create a local Neighbourhood Plan. SLPC said that the Steering Group was completely separate from SLPC and that any information that the Group held in connection with the Neighbourhood Plan was neither held by SLPC nor accessible by means of an information request to SLPC. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is held by the Steering Group for SLPC’s business purposes and thus that it is ‘held’ by SLPC within the meaning of regulation 3(2)(b) of the EIR. She also finds that SLPC breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide its response within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires SLPC to issue a fresh response to the request under the EIR. The response should not rely on a claim that SLPC does not hold the information within the meaning of regulation 3(2)(b) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 3(2)(b); EIR 5(2)
21 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about road traffic speed limit enforcement. Durham Constabulary disclosed to the complainant all the information it said it held which fell within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner decided that on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, no further information was held and that Durham Constabulary had complied with FOIA. She does not require Durham Constabulary to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0251 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
21 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning application, held by Building Control, from Milton Keynes Council (“the Council”). The Council initially responded under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”) and provided some information, but withheld other information under various exemptions. After reconsidering the request under the EIR, the Council’s position was that the information it had withheld was exempt from disclosure under regulation 13 – personal information. It also stated that some information about concerns raised by Building Control was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that because the Council initially failed to consider the request under the correct access regime, it breached the requirements of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. Regarding the information requested about concerns raised by Building Control, she has determined that on the balance of probabilities, it is not held. Regarding the withheld information, the Commissioner is satisfie
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
View Milton Keynes Council
20 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to council enforcement activities relating to his own property. The council provided much of the information, however, it redacted some information under Regulation 13 of the EIR. It also initially withheld information on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(b) applied, and refused to provide some information on the basis that it was information which the complainant had provided to the council in the first instance (Regulation 6). The complainants believe that the council was not correct to redact some of the information they have, that the council has not been transparent about some of the redactions it has made, and that further information should be held. They also argue that redactions have been made inconsistently and complained that the council’s records contain inaccuracies. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the council withdrew its reliance on Regulation 12(5)(b) and agreed to disclose the relevant information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
View East Lindsey District Council
20 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (the Council) seeking information about the circumstances in which it could cancel a Penalty Charge Notice due to medical circumstances. The Council confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it explained that it now considered sections 31(1)(c) and 31(1)(g) (law enforcement) of FOIA to apply instead. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions contained at sections 31(1)(c) and 31(1)(g) of FOIA do not provide a basis to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Kingston upon Thames Council
17 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Through a multi-part request, the complainant has requested information about electronic systems that the University of Northampton (‘the University’) may use to monitor and record student attendance. The University addressed the majority of the parts of the complainant’s request. It relied on section 21(1) of the FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means) to withhold the information requested in part 7.5 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold the specific information requested at part 7.5 of the request. The University therefore breached section 1(1)(a) and section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not confirm to the complainant that it does not hold this information within 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View The University of Northampton
17 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested details of schools included in a pilot scheme relating to selling surplus school land for housing. The Department for Education (DfE) refused the request under the exceptions at regulation 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied the regulation 12(4)(d) exception and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exception. She requires no steps to be taken by the DfE.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Department for Education
16 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Chilton Town Council (“the council”) in relation to its allowances over a two-year period. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The council must 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
16 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to reconsideration of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) is not entitled to rely on section 31 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information. 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0245 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31
View London Borough of Lambeth
16 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). The Council relied on section 31 and 43 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (the Council) is not entitled to rely on either section to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires to disclose the requested information. 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 31; FOI 43
View Kingston upon Thames Council
16 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the correspondence sent between two DWP employees. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the Act to refuse to comply with the requests. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take issue a fresh response which does not rely on section 14(1). 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 Department for Work and Pensions
15 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Brent (the Council) seeking information about the payments it receives from JC Decaux for the use of advertising boards in the borough. The Council refused to disclose the information relying on section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the information and that in the all circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, the Council breached section 17(1) by failing to issue a refusal notice citing section 43(2) within the time period required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 43
View London Borough of Brent
15 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests about the absence and then departure from post, by the Chief Executive. West Sussex County Council withheld the requested information and relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is the personal data of the Chief Executive and that there is no lawful basis under GDPR for disclosure of the withheld information in respect of either request. As disclosure under the FOIA would therefore breach the GDPR principles, the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Sussex County Council
15 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a briefing document which had been referred to in correspondence. The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) refused to provide the requested information citing sections 40 (personal information), 31(1)(b) and (c) (law enforcement) and 41 (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Attorney General's Office
15 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning meetings between the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) and Facebook in May and June 2018.
The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS misapplied section 36(2)(b)(ii)(prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) to some of the withheld information, this information being instead exempt under section 35(1)(a)(formulation or development of government policy). While the Commissioner is satisfied that all of the withheld information is exempt under section 35(1)(a), she considers that the public interest favours disclosure of some of the information.
In addition, as DCMS responded to the request after 20 working days and failed to confirm that some information was held under 12 months after the request, they have breached section 10 and 1 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Disclose the inform
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 35
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
15 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about non-disclosure agreements. The Council of Newcastle University had failed to respond to the request at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University 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
15 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cambridgeshire Constabulary about the ownership of four properties. Cambridgeshire Constabulary advised the complainant that it does not hold this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, Cambridgeshire Constabulary does not hold the requested information. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0239 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
15 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Royal Borough of Greenwich about policies and procedures for freehold repairs. The Royal Borough of Greenwich has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the Royal Borough of Greenwich to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Royal Borough of Greenwich must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
15 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the National Grid PLC (“NG”) regarding four wind farms, the key stages of establishing connection and other related information. NG refused to provide this information, initially refusing it under Regulation 12(5)(f) but later changed its reliance on this regulation and cited Regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(e) instead. The Commissioner’s decision is that Regulation 12(4)(d) is not engaged regarding Kype Muir, but it is engaged in relation to Broken Cross where the public interest favours maintaining the exception. She does not agree that Regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged with regard to the information requested relating to Beinneun, Kilgallioch and Kype Muir. However, she accepts that the exception is engaged regarding Broken Cross and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner has also decided that NG has breached Regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR by not providing information it held within the time for co
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 9(1)
14 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to 'Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial'. KCL refused to disclose some of the requested information under section 22A and 40(2) FOIA and argued that some of the requested information either was not held by KCL or alternatively it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA to locate, retrieve and extract it. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 22A FOIA was applied correctly to some of the requested information and it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA to locate, retrieve and extract the remaining requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 22A
View King's College London
14 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Thurrock Council (the Council) regarding its investments in the renewable energy sector. The Council refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 43 (commercial interests) and 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply the section 43 exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0242 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Thurrock Council
14 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about possible drug use by a murderer from Wiltshire Police (“WP”). WP initially refused to confirm or deny holding the requested information, citing section 40(5)(personal information) of the FOIA. It later revised this, instead refusing to confirm or deny holding the information citing section 30(3)(investigations and proceedings) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it revised its position again, advising that no information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, no information is held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wiltshire Police
14 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted three requests to the London Borough of Newham (the Council) seeking information about whether two named organisations had received funding to deliver Prevent training and programmes. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the requests on the basis of sections 24(2) (national security), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 43(3) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council is entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of each of the requests. She has also concluded that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption in each request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Newham Council
14 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to money borrowed by Thurrock Council (the Council) from other local authorities and information relating to the amount lent by the Council to other local authorities. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing sections 43 (commercial interests) and 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply the section 43 exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0241 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Thurrock Council
14 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) seeking information about whether a named organisation had received funding to deliver Prevent training and programmes. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the requests on the basis of sections 24(2) (national security), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 43(3) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council is entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of both the requests. She has also concluded that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption in both requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Southwark Council
13 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) seeking information about a gold mining project in Armenia. DFID explained that it held two documents falling within the scope of the request, both of which were in the public domain, and it provided the complainant with a link to both. The complainant questioned whether DFID held further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities DFID does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request beyond the two documents already located.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for International Development
13 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about the number of times Ministers had consulted or approved intelligence sharing in particular circumstances. The MOD explained that it held some information falling within the scope of the request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(b) (defence) and 27(1)(a) (international relations). It also refused to confirm or deny whether it held any further information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 23(5) (security bodies) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to rely on section 27(1)(a) to withhold the information and that in all of the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She has also concluded that the MOD is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any further information falling within the scope of the request
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
13 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of an FOI Round Robin List maintained by the public authority and circulated to Whitehall departments. The public authority withheld the list relying on the exemptions at section 36(2)(b) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was not entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b). However, some of the information on the list is exempt on the basis of section 40(2) FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0240 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
13 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested pre-application planning details for a specific address from Sheffield City Council (the “Council”). The Council provided some information but withheld the remainder, citing regulations 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings), 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) and 12(5)(f) (voluntary supply of information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the exception at regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR. However, the Council breached regulation 11(4) by failing to provide its internal review response within the required 40 working days. The Council is not required to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)
View Sheffield City Council
13 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) seeking information about a meeting between The Prince of Wales and the then Secretary of State, Clare Short. DFID explained that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The complainant disputed this and argued that DFID was likely to hold information. The Commissioner has concluded that on the balance of possibilities DFID does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for International Development
13 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about membership of the risk protection arrangement scheme. The Department for Education (DfE) has withheld the information under section 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests) and considers the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of the FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require DfE to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Education
10 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from North Somerset Council (the Council) information consisting of email correspondence between two named Council officers and Kingston Seymour Parish Council during a specified period of time. The Council disclosed some information in its initial response and additional correspondence in the outcome of its internal review. However, the complainant was not satisfied with the amount of information received.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold any further information within the scope of the request, but breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in providing the information it did hold outside the required 20 working day response time.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2020/0245 Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View North Somerset Council
9 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested University College London (UCL) to disclose email correspondence between Professor Birchall and Lancet in relation to a case report that was published by the Professor in the Lancet in 2008. UCL refused to disclose the requested information citing section 36(2)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCL is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with section 36(2)(b)(ii) and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View University College London
9 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information of the datasets used by the DWP on its standard IT systems. The DWP relies on sections 31(a) and 24, to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP correctly relied on section 31(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0236 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Department for Work and Pensions
9 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cornwall Council (“the Council”) about bonuses paid to employees of Cormac Solutions Limited. The Council stated that this information, if held, would be held by the parent company of Cormac Solutions, Corserv Limited, and the Council itself did not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cornwall Council
9 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding policies on providing student references and on the time taken to deal with student complaints. The Governing Body of the University of Oxford (the University) informed the complainant that it did not hold the requested information. During the course of the investigation it became apparent that the University did hold information relating to the time taken to deal with complaints, but as this was contained within the individual complaint files, the time it would take to extract the information would exceed the appropriate limit. The University therefore relied on section 12 to refuse this element of the request which the complainant accepted. The Commissioner is satisfied that the University does not hold information about references, however its initial response to the request was late. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to inform the complainant that the information on refer
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17(5)
9 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to the council and legal definitions. Teignbridge District Council provided some information and explained that it did not hold any further information in relation to question 1 and no information in relation to question 2.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Teignbridge District Council is correct to state that it does not hold any further information in relation to question 1 and no information in relation to question 2. The Commissioner therefore considers that it has not breached section 1 (right to information) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require Teignbridge District Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0229 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Teignbridge District Council
9 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a Durham Constabulary-led investigation. Durham Constabulary stated that any information that may be held, was not held for the purposes of the FOIA, citing section 3(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the requested information, if held, would be held by Durham Constabulary for its own purposes, and therefore would fall within the definition of held for the purposes of the FOIA under section 3(2) of the FOIA. She therefore considers that Durham Constabulary failed to comply with its duty to confirm or deny under section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires Durham Constabulary to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response in accordance with section 1 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 3
8 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the advice given by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to NHS Trusts about how to respond to freedom of information requests for Brexit self-assessments. The DHSC refused the request on the basis of section 35(1)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 35 exemption is engaged but the balance of the public interest favours disclosure of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
8 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a Performance and Audit Committee Update and any associated documents and the agenda and minutes from this committee’s meeting on 7 March 2019 from the Arts Council England (“ACE”). ACE refused to disclose this information, citing section 36 of the FOIA – prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that ACE correctly cited section 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) to the requested information and was entitled to withhold it. The Commissioner does not require ACE to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View Arts Council England
8 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council about the recruitment process for senior roles within the organisation. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sandwell Council
8 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Defence about frigates. The Ministry of Defence has taken too long to complete its deliberations over the public interest test. The Commissioner requires the Ministry of Defence to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Ministry of Defence must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Ministry of Defence
8 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the name of an individual responsible for writing an internal email which has been disclosed to his wife by the Cabinet Office. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has appropriately applied section 40(2) FOIA (personal information) to withhold the name. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0248 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Cabinet Office
8 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about crime reports which mention certain social media sites. West Midlands Police (‘WMP’) disclosed some information, but refused to provide summaries of individual reports, on the grounds that the request was vexatious within the meaning of section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires WMP to issue a fresh response to the request dated 9 December 2019, which does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View West Midlands Police
8 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information prepared for Gordon Brown in the event that he became Prime Minister again following the 2010 general election. The Cabinet Office eventually sought to rely on section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) as its basis for doing so. It failed to conduct an internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is not entitled to rely on section 36. In failing to provide a response in accordance with its timeliness obligations under FOIA, it contravened section 10 of the FOIA. For reasons which are unique to the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take steps in respect of this request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0237 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
8 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on staff promotions at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The DHSC refused the request as to comply would exceed the cost limit under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has incorrectly applied the provisions of section 12 to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response that does not rely on section 12.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department of Health and Social Care