8 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the process document(s) which Highways England use to manage claims against Third Party drivers, legal representatives and Insurers. HE confirmed that it did not hold the requested information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that on the balance of probabilities, there is no recorded information was held by HE under section 1(1)(a) FOIA falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0270 FTT consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View National Highways
8 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on pay allowances granted to staff at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), broken down by directorate. 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 correctly applied the provisions of section 12 to refuse the request and in providing advice and assistance to the complainant has also complied with section 16 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department of Health and Social Care
8 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to attempts by the Prince of Wales to represent the Duke of Norfolk or to seek assistance on behalf of the Duke, his family, his estates, his tenants, his businesses and his land holdings. The Environment Agency confirmed that it did not hold the requested information under regulation 12(4)(a) EIR. The Commissioner considers that on the balance of probabilities, there is no recorded information held by the Environment Agency under regulation 12(4)(a) EIR falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Environment Agency
8 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about plea deal agreements from the Serious Fraud Office (‘SFO’). The SFO refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the SFO was entitled to rely on the exemptions cited. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Serious Fraud 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
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
7 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning application. St Albans City and District Council, (the Council), provided some information within the scope of the request but denied holding further information. The complainant considered that the Council held further information within the scope of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council is correct when it says that it holds no further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View St Albans City and District Council
7 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested environmental health and health and safety inspection reports for a specified holiday park. Sedgemoor District Council (the ‘Council’) provided the information it held (namely food hygiene reports) and initially said it could not provide any further information in relation to the health and safety inspection reports due to an ongoing investigation. Ultimately, the complainant confirmed he was only concerned with the health and safety information. The Council refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, citing the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision within the FOIA section 30(3) exemption for public authority investigations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to consider this request under FOIA. She also finds that section 30(3) of FOIA is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Accordingly, the Council was entitled to rely on section 30(3) to refuse to confirm or den
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 30
View Sedgemoor District Council
7 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a concern she had raised with the ICO. The ICO failed to respond to this request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner considers that the ICO has breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Information Commissioner
7 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested, from the Ministry of Justice information on court cases initiated by a particular company in the previous two years. The Ministry of Justice withheld the information in its entirety under Sections 32(1)(a) and 32(1)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ministry of Justice has correctly applied Section 32(1)(c) to the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32(1)
View Ministry of Justice
7 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a report into the carbon footprint of Cardiff Council’s (‘the Council’) pension fund. The Council initially refused the request but did not cite any specific exemptions. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed some information. The Council accepted that the request should have been considered under the EIR and confirmed that it was relying on regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(c), and 12(5)(e) to withhold the remainder of the report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to demonstrate that Regulations 12(5)(c) and 12(5)(e) are engaged. She finds that Regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged but that the public interest in disclosing the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exception. In failing to consider the request under the EIR, the Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 14. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(c); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14
View Cardiff Council
7 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Kent County Council (“the Council”) information in relation to a report regarding Invicta Law. The Council responded to the request only after more than 20 working days had elapsed.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within twenty working days and therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA.
As the request has since been responded to, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Kent County Council
7 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Arts Council England (ACE) to disclose the “update on the Arts Council’s preparations for the Spending Review” provided by Richard Russell at ACE’s National Council meeting on 19 June (referred to in item 5 of the minutes). ACE refused to disclosed the requested information citing section 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(ii) is engaged and the public interest in favour of disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View Arts Council England
3 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The applicant has requested information relating to guidance published by the General Medical Council (GMC). The Commissioner’s decision is that GMC has correctly applied section 42 of the FOIA 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 42
View GMC
2 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about alleged criminal offences committed by councillors. Shropshire Council did not comply with the request and cited section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate cost limit) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that although section 12 of the FOIA applies, Shropshire Council should have applied section 12(2) (‘neither confirm nor deny’ on cost grounds) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require Shropshire Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Shropshire Council
2 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to a specific piece of correspondence between MPs. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is relying on section 35(1)(d) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is not entitled to rely on section 35(1)(d) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority 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 35
View Department for Work and Pensions
2 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various policies from Clarion Housing Group (“CHG”), citing both the FOIA and the EIR. The Commissioner’ decision is that the request would fall within the remit of the FOIA rather than the EIR. However, she also finds that CHG is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA and it was not therefore obliged to respond to the request. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0224 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Clarion Housing Group
2 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the erection of a fence on the boundary between a holiday park and Ecclesbourne Glen. The council refused the request on the basis he had asked questions rather than made requests for recorded information. On review it directed the requestor to its planning portal, and responded directly to the questions asked, but it did not provide any further recorded information. The complainant considers that further information should have been provided to him. The complainant also complained about the time which the council took to respond to his request for review. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. She has, however, decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 11(4) in that it did not provide a response to the complainant's request for review within 40 working days. She has also
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(3); EIR 5(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
1 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the Department for Transport (DfT) to disclose copies of letters between Patrick McLoughlin, George Osborne, Chris Grayling and Philip Hammond relating to HS2 between 2016 and 2019. The DfT refused to disclose the requested information citing section 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the DfT confirmed that if it was found that the request should have been considered under the EIR, it wished to rely on regulations 12(4)(e), 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been considered under the EIR and the DfT is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) for the non-disclosure of the requested information. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Department for Transport
1 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence exchanged with the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health in relation to a property which she owns. Reigate and Banstead Borough Council withheld the information because it considered that the information was the personal data of a third party. The Commissioner’s decision is that any information falling within the scope of the request would have been the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner has therefore taken the decision to apply section 40(1) of the FOIA herself proactively to prevent disclosure. The Council also failed to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days and thus breached section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
1 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Huntingdonshire District Council (the council) relating to the council tax of a specific property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA. However, she has found that the council has breached section 17(1)(b) of the FOIA as it failed to cite an exemption when issuing its refusal notice to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0235 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View Huntingdonshire District Council
1 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Royal Holloway, University of London (the “university”) about its planning for a “no-deal” Brexit. The university refused to confirm or deny (“NCND”) whether it held the requested information under section 43(3) by virtue of section 43(2) - the exemption for commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university was not entitled to issue a neither confirm nor deny response to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• The university is required to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held and either disclose that information or issue a valid refusal notice in respect of that information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
1 Jul 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the field of forensics known as ‘hand identification’ from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (“NPCC”). The NPCC initially withheld all the information held citing sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it disclosed some information, decided that some information previously identified fell outside the scope of the request and advised that no further information was held in respect of one part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NPCC correctly determined that some of the information fell outside the scope of the request and that it was also correct to find that further information was not held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View National Police Chiefs Council
1 Jul 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a report on the safety case for the Chiltern Tunnel section of the High Speed 2 (HS2) railway. High Speed Two Limited (HS2 Ltd) has withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(d) (material still in the course of completion), regulation 12(5)(a) (public safety), and regulation 13(1) (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is HS2 Ltd correctly withheld the requested information under the exception at regulation 12(4)(d) and the public interest favoured maintaining this exception. However, HS2 Ltd breached regulation 14(2) as it did not refuse the request within the required timescale. HS2 Ltd also breached regulation 11 as it did not carry out the internal review and notify the complainant of the outcome within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require HS2 Ltd to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 14(2)(1)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
1 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a meeting held between Birmingham City Council and West Midlands Police about the ‘Trojan Horse Letter’. The Council responded, stating no information was held, but later changed its position and applied section 12 (costs limit) to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City has breached section 16 of the FOIA by failing to engage with the complainant to clarify the nature and scope of the request. Until this is done, she is unable to consider the Council’s arguments for the application of section 12. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Engage with the complainant to clarify the request, and if necessary, provide advice and assistance to bring the request within the costs limit, taking note of the Commissioner’s comments on Boolean searches. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision n
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Birmingham City Council
1 Jul 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to loans for residential house purchases. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) disclosed the majority of the information but refused to provide the remaining requested information (the small numbers <5 ) citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA has incorrectly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the withheld small numbers <5. 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 40
View Financial Conduct Authority
30 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Gloucestershire County Council (“the Council”) regarding the staffing and resourcing allocated to the Lead Local Flood Authority Function so that it can execute the responsibilities delegated to it under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Gloucestershire County Council
30 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for correspondence between the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, and The Queen, concerning the UK’s exit from the European Union (Brexit). The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on regulation 13(5)(A). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Cabinet Office
30 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Northern Ireland Screen regarding funding granted to minority groups. Northern Ireland Screen treated the request as vexatious and effectively applied section 14(1) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) of the FOIA has been incorrectly applied in this case.
3. The Commissioner requires Northern Ireland Screen to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• To issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA which does not rely on section 14(1).
4. 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 Northern Ireland Office
30 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information in respect of the Robin Holden Report. Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board responded to some of the complainant’s questions but refused the report relying on section 21 and section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board was not entitled to rely on either section 21 or section 41 of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner has also recorded a breach of section 17(1) of the FOIA as it failed to respond within the timescales specified under section 10(1) of the FOIA. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2020/0233 consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 41
View Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
30 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested any information held on the question of whether the UK left the EU on 29 March 2019. In subsequent correspondence with the AGO, he made a further request for specific information. The Attorney General’s Office (‘the AGO’) treated the two as separate requests, which the complainant objected to. In respect of the first request, it disclosed some information, said that some information was exempt from disclosure under section 32(1)(a) (court records) of the FOIA and would neither confirm nor deny whether it held further information, citing section 35(3)(formulation of government policy) by way of section 35(1)(c) of the FOIA. In respect of the second request, it told the complainant that it did not hold the requested information. The complainant disputed that such a response was ever sent to him. He also disputed its claim not to hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO was entitled to treat the first and second requests as separate reque
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 32; FOI 35
View Attorney General's Office
29 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the involvement of Huawei Company in the UK’s 5G telecommunications network. Following investigation by the Commissioner, the Home Office told the complainant and the Commissioner that it did not hold any relevant information. The Commissioner decided, on the balance of probabilities, that the Home Office does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
29 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from NHS Supply Chain Coordination Ltd (“SCCL”) about the volume, units, quantity and revenue of certain product lines it sold in 2017 and 2018. SCCL initially withheld all the information under section 43(2) but subsequently disclosed information regarding the first three items. It continued to cite section 43(2) for the revenue information. The Commissioner’s decision is that SCCL has correctly withheld the requested information under section 43(2) but that in providing information late, SCCL breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 43(2)
29 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the death of a named individual. Northamptonshire Police refused to disclose the requested information within the scope of the first part of the request, citing sections 27(1) (international relations), 30(1) (investigations and proceedings conducted by the public authority) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. It refused to confirm or deny holding the requested information within the scope of the second part of the request, citing sections 30(3) and 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated Northamptonshire Police’s handling of the second part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northamptonshire Police was entitled to rely on section 30(3) and that, in all of the circumstances of the case, the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Northamptonshire Police
29 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to subsidies paid in respect of concessionary travel. Blaenau Gwent Council (the Council) refused to provide the requested information in reliance on the exemptions at section 41 and section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 41 is engaged. Therefore the Council was entitled to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0226 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council
26 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Homes England concerning the approval of a housing management agreement under section 27 of the Housing Act 1995. HE disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing the following sections of the FOIA: 21 -information already available; 31 – law enforcement; 38 – health and safety; 40(2) – third party personal data and 42 – legal professional privilege. The complainant challenged the application of sections 31 and 40(2) only. The Commissioner’s decision is that Homes England has failed to demonstrate that section 31 is engaged, and that it is entitled to rely on section 40(2) for the withheld personal data. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information withheld under section 31 of the FOIA in the document entitled RFI2414-IR-Annex A.pdf.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40(2)
View Homes England
26 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Natural History Museum (NHM) on research papers and evidence for evolutionary theory. NHM refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHM has correctly found the request to be vexatious and section 14(1) was correctly applied by NHM. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Natural History Museum
26 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on 50p commemorative coins to mark the United Kingdom’s (‘UK’) withdrawal from the European Union (‘EU’). The Commissioner’s decision is that HM Treasury (‘HMT’) is entitled to rely on section 35(1) – Formulation of government policy and section 43(1) – Commercial interests, to withhold some of the information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner also finds that on the balance of probabilities some of the requested information was not held at the time of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 43
View HM Treasury
25 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested complaint-related information from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). Having initially cited exemptions to the request, it was revised by the complainant and the MPS subsequently advised that to comply with it would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12 of the FOIA. The complainant did not consider that the MPS had provided him with adequate advice and assistance about his request, as required under section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS complied with its duty under section 16 of the FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
25 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested budgetary information from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS advised that to comply with the request would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12 of the FOIA. The complainant did not consider that the MPS had provided him with adequate advice and assistance about his request, as required under section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS complied with its duty under section 16 of the FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
25 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Through an eight part request to North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust (NCIC), the complainant has requested information on various types of complaints and concerns that may have been raised about NCIC and its consultants, and information about one of NCIC’s contracts. NCIC addressed the parts of the complainant’s request: releasing information it holds, confirming where it does not hold relevant information and directing him to its website where other information is published. The complainant considers that NCIC holds further relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, NCIC does not hold recorded information relevant to parts 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the request and has released all the information it holds that is relevant to part 3. As such, NCIC has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA in relation to those parts. The information the complainant has requested in parts 1, 2 and 6 is exempt information under section 21(1) of
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 21
View North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
24 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested operational instructions for police handlers and discipline-related information about seven of its officers from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS directed the complainant to some of the information but refused to confirm or deny holding any information about the named officers, citing section 40(5)(personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5) is properly engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
24 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Manchester City Council (‘the Council’) information relating to land between Millbank Street and Store Street. The Council disclosed some information to the complainant and withheld other information under regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the information provider) of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to reconsider the complainant’s representations within 40 working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR to the withheld information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0225 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Manchester City Council
24 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Committee on Climate Change (“the CCC”) which related to the CCC’s publication Net Zero - The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming. Specifically, he requested spreadsheets that had been used to compile information on a document which the CCC had provided to him in response to an earlier request. The CCC refused the request as being manifestly unreasonable, on grounds of cost and diversion of resources, under the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) is not engaged in respect of the request. The Commissioner requires the CCC 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 the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0231 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Committee on Climate Change
24 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding an outline application for the building of nine dwellings. South Cambridgeshire District Council answered some questions. It also explained that it did not hold some of the requested information, citing regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held at the time of the request) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that South Cambridgeshire District Council has relied on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR in relation to some of the requested information, appropriately. The Commissioner considers that in relation to a requested report, South Cambridgeshire District Council was not correct to state, on the balance of probabilities, that it does not hold some additional information. The Commissioner also considers that the council has breached regulation 5(2) (Duty to make available environmental information on request), 11(4) (Representations and reconsideration) and 9(1) (Advice and assistance) of the EIR.
The Commissioner requires
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2); EIR 9(2)
View South Cambridgeshire District Council
23 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the BBC documentary ‘World War Three: Inside the War Room’. The BBC refused to comply with the request as it considered that the requested information is held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and is therefore outside the scope of the FOIA. The complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information the complainant has requested is derogated and the BBC is not obliged to comply with section 1(1) of the FOIA in respect of the request. The Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
23 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from some withheld chapters of a partly published report from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) whether the requested information is held, citing the exemptions at sections 31(3) (law enforcement,) 40(5) (personal information) and 44(2) (statutory prohibition) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, it added reliance on section 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 31(3), 40(5) and 44(2) are not engaged. Section 30(3) is engaged but the public interest favours providing a confirmation or denial as to whether the information is held. The Commissioner requires the MPS issue a fresh response, which must confirm or deny whether the information is held, and either disclose the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 31; FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
23 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about collaboration with a social media provider from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS disclosed some information but would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding further information, citing section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(3) is not engaged. Furthermore, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory time limit, she finds that the MPS breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MPS to issue a fresh response, which must confirm or deny whether the information is held, and either disclose the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31
View Metropolitan Police Service
23 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the Head of Paid Service’s diary. The Council refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that Folkstone and Hythe District Council is entitled to refuse the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Folkestone and Hythe District Council
23 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested planning related information in relation to a proposed housing scheme. Somerset County Council (the ‘Council’) provided some information but withheld the remainder citing Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR, the exception for internal communications. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council revisited the withheld information and subsequently disclosed a letter and emails which it said did not constitute ‘internal communications’ as they had been shared externally with the developer. The Council maintained that Regulation 12(4)(e) applied to the two remaining memos in scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to consider this request under the EIR. She also finds that it has applied Regulation 12(4)(e) to the remaining withheld information correctly. She concludes that the weight of the public interest lies in maintaining the Council’s application of this exception. However, she finds that the Council
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Somerset Council