23 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Norfolk County Council (“the council”), in relation to an ethical policy for both procurement and investments. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not a valid request for information because it does not meet the requirements of section 8 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Norfolk County Council
23 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on Folkestone and Hythe District Council’s freedom of information Publication Scheme. The Council refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that Folkestone and Hythe District Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA and refuse the request as vexatious. She also finds that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA – time for compliance – by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 14(1)
View Folkestone and Hythe District Council
22 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Haringey (the Council) seeking information about any evaluation undertaken concerning a safeguarding programme run by a named organisation. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 24(2) (national security) and 43(3) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council is entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Haringey Council
22 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) seeking information about any evaluation undertaken about a safeguarding programme run by a named organisation. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 31(3) (law enforcement). The Commissioner has concluded that the Council is entitled to rely on section 31(3) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View London Borough of Lambeth
22 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In an eight part request, the complainant has requested information about the programme ‘Confronting Holocaust Denial with David Baddiel’. The BBC refused to comply with the request as it considered that all the requested information was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and was therefore outside the scope of the FOIA. The complainant disputed this. The BBC subsequently re-considered its response to part 3 of the request. It confirmed that it does not hold some of the information requested in that part and has refused to release other information under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considers it to be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information requested in parts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the request, and elements of part 3 of the request, is derogated and does not fall within the scope of the FOIA. The BBC does not hold some of the information covered by three parts of part 3 of the request and has now complied w
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View BBC
22 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of the number of times each Former Member’s security pass was used. The House of Commons disclosed an anonymised version of the list, but relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the name linked to each individual pass. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information in question is personal data but that the legitimate interests in disclosure outweigh the rights of the data subjects. She therefore finds that the Commons is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the Commons to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose a de-anonymised version of the list it has already disclosed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
22 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Scottish Power Energy Networks (“SPEN”) relating to the Kype Muir wind farm power cable project. SPEN provided a quantity of information over a period of time but withheld some information under the exceptions at Regulations 12(4)(a), 12(4)(c) and later 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that SPEN has correctly cited the exception at 12(4)(a) and that, on the balance of probability, no information is held. She also accepts that the exception at 12(5)(e) is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining non-disclosure. The Commissioner does not accept that the exception at 12(4)(c) is engaged but has reached the conclusion that there is no further information to be disclosed. The Commissioner does not require SPEN to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0230 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(c); EIR 12(5)(e)
22 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Irby Upon Humber Parish Council’s (“the Council”) policies, the Council clerk’s job role and a previous ICO case (FS50824379).
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 21(1) (information reasonably accessible by other means) of the FOIA is not engaged to parts 1, 2 and 4 of the request and that the Council had not issued an appropriate response to part 5 of the request which fulfils its obligations under section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Disclose to the complainant the information withheld under section 21(1). • Issue a response to part 5 of the request that complies with the FOIA.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 21
22 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the London Borough of Croydon (the Council) seeking information about whether two named organisations had received funding to delivery 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 section 24(2) (national security) 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 either request and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining this exemption in for each request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View London Borough of Croydon
20 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Brent (the Council) seeking information about any evaluation undertaken about a safeguarding programme run by a named organisation. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 24(2) (national security) and 43(3) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council is entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View London Borough of Brent
20 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to the medication Midazolam and serious incident reports. Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) considers the request to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly cited section 14(1) of the FOIA in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
20 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the sale of a piece of Council-owned land. The Council provided some information, stated some information was not held, and withheld some information under regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on the exceptions cited in respect of the withheld information. The Commissioner also finds that the Council does not hold any further information relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
19 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a telephone number for the Head of the FOI Team at the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (the MHCLG). The MHCLG refused the request on the basis that section 40(2) of the Act applies (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG was correct to apply section 40(2) to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the MHCLG to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
18 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about, and relating to, a specific planning application. Somerset West and Taunton Council (‘SWTC’) disclosed all the information it said that it held which fell within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, SWTC has disclosed to the complainant all the information it holds which fell within the scope of his request. However, the Commissioner finds that SWTC breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to disclose the information it held within 20 working days and it breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to conduct an internal review within 40 working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
18 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
In a multi-part request to Transport for the North (TfN), the complainant has requested information associated with the Southern Pennines: Strategic Development Corridor. TfN initially withheld information relevant to two parts of the request under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (commercial information). It addressed the remaining parts of the request as ‘normal course of business’. During the Commissioner’s investigation, TfN withdrew its reliance on regulation 12(5)(e). It has categorised the request as manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) and considers that the information it is withholding engages regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion). The complainant disputes this position. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: TfN cannot rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to disclose the requested information. The information can be categorised as material in the course of completion under regulation 12(4)(d), however the public interest favours releasing
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(4)(d)
18 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complaints from Dicconson Group Practice (DGP), for the years 2009 to 2019. DGP did not release some of the relevant information it holds, it released other information and appeared to advise that it does not hold relevant information for two of the years requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that: DGP’s response to the request breached section 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b) of the FOIA but it holds no further information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. DGP’s response breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1) or provide a refusal notice for an element of the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires DGP to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Re-issue to the complainant the ‘Internal Review’ it says it had originally sent to him on 6 October 2019. As well as the two pdf documents, this communication should include the two Excel documents a
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
18 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an undercover police officer from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to confirm or deny whether it held the information citing sections 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS met with its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA in respect of one part of the request. In respect of the remainder, she finds that section 40(5) is properly engaged. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0221 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
18 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation minutes. The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (the MHCLG) refused the request under section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA - formulation/ development of government policy. During the Commissioner’s initial investigations, the MHCLG amended its position and provided some information but maintained the exemption to the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA is engaged to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the MHCLG to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0202 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
18 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a particular information governance breach. Barts Health NHS Trust (the Trust) refused to comply with the request and cited section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that The Trust was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. She also finds that the Trust breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to provide its substantive response to the request within the statutory timescale of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Barts Health NHS Trust
18 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested legal advice relating to planning permission for a specific development. Bassetlaw District Council refused the request, citing the exemption for legal professional privilege – section 42 of the FOIA. The public authority subsequently reconsidered the request under the EIR and applied the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)) to withhold the same information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bassetlaw District Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1) of the EIR but that it correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0223 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
View Bassetlaw District Council
17 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA). The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 30 (investigations and proceedings) and 41 (information provided in confidence) 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 Serious Fraud Office
17 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report provided to the Cabinet Office by the Intelligence and Security Committee to Parliament (ISC). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 23(1) of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
17 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about non-disclosure agreements and the criminal convictions of staff. The University Council of the University of Warwick originally said that it did not hold any information within the scope of part of the request and relied on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the remainder. It subsequently clarified that it did hold some further relevant information which it has now disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that University failed to comply with its duty under section 1(1) of the FOIA within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. She also finds that it failed to obtain the correct interpretation of the original request and thus breached its section 16 duty to provide advice and assistance. As the Commissioner is satisfied that University has now complied with its section 1(1) duty, she does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16
View The University of Warwick
17 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by the social care department within Darlington Borough Council (the council) about his deceased mother. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to withhold the information that has been requested under section 41(1) of the FOIA-information provided in confidence. However, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached section 17(1) of the FOIA as it failed to issue a refusal notice within the prescribed 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 41
View Darlington Borough Council
17 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a data sharing agreement between the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and Greater Manchester Police (GMP). The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
17 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested proof held by the council that her late mother informed the council that it should not provide her with information on her care. The council did not respond to the request on the basis it had responded to a similar request previously. She therefore complained that the council did not respond to her request for information. She also complained that the council was withholding information on the basis that section 41 of the Act applies (information held under a duty of confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 41 to withhold the information from disclosure. She has also decided that the council was correct to apply section 14(2) and refuse to respond to the request as required by section 1(1). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(2); FOI 41
View North Yorkshire County Council
17 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report provided to the Cabinet Office by the Intelligence and Security Committee to Parliament (ISC). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 23(1) of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
16 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Thorne-Moorends Town Council information about the outcome of two public consultations held in 2014. The requests were largely for information about employment and housing planning matters. She also asked to view information held by the Council about her subsequent complaints to it arising from those consultations. The Commissioner decided, on the balance of probabilities, that the Council has now disclosed all of the relevant information it holds and has complied with the FOIA legislation. She did not require the Council to take any steps.
Please note that the complainant disputes the accuracy of paragraphs 8 and 9 of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0213 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
16 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office about a senior government adviser. The Cabinet Office has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Cabinet Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
16 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about whether The Queen and the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, had discussed the topics of Brexit or the prorogation of Parliament at their weekly meetings, or had exchanged correspondence on these subjects. Under FOIA the Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information on the basis of section 37(2) by virtue of section 37(1)(a) (communications with the Sovereign). To the extent that any of the requested information, if held, would be environmental information the Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held such information on the basis of regulations 13(5)(a) (personal data) and 12(6) (international relations) of the EIR. The Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 37(2) of FOIA and regulation 13(5)(a) of the EIR in the manner in which it has.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5a); FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
16 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office about the Prime Minister. The Cabinet Office has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Cabinet Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
16 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to projected journey times using HS2 between a number of stations. HS2 Ltd dealt with the request under the FOIA. It confirmed that some of the requested information was held and provided links to where it considered some of the information held was available on the internet. However it originally withheld the rest of the information under the exemptions provided by section 36 of the FOIA – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs. Having been provided with copies of the journey times that were held and having considered the case carefully, the Commissioner determined that the information was environmental information and that therefore the request should have been considered under the EIR. As a consequence HS2 Ltd provided the Commissioner with a fresh submission setting out its arguments for withholding the information under regulation 12(4)(a) – information not held, 12(4)(d) - information in the course of completion, and regulati
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
16 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Universal Credit programme and its information technology systems. The DWP relies on sections 22 (future publication) and 31(1) (a) (prevention of crime) to withhold requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP incorrectly relied on section 22, but correctly relied on 31(1) (a), to withhold requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the information withheld by reference to section 22. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0219 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 31
View Department for Work and Pensions
16 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department regarding a recruitment process. The Department disclosed some information to him, however it 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
16 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Wokingham Borough Council information in relation to a report about road safety improvements on a specific road, commissioned by the Council.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to take reasonable measure to identify the information requested and therefore breached its duty to provide advice and assistance as required by section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Council failed to comply with its duties under section 1 of the FOIA within 20 working days and therefore also breached section 10 of the FOIA.
As the Council has now provided the information sought by the complainant, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further step, in order to comply with this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Wokingham Council
15 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Natural England (“NE”) concerning whether corvid or other bird or mammal species control licences had been granted by the public authority for certain named geographical locations. Natural England provided copies of all lethal individual licences (including supporting documentation) issued to these areas during 2019 but refused to provide identifying location information, citing regulation 12(5)(a) (public safety) and regulation 12(3) personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that NE has correctly applied the exception at regulation 12(5)(a) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception and withholding the requested information. She has also decided that Natural England has disclosed all the relevant information it holds and complied with regulation 5(1) but some of it was provided outside the time frame and therefore it breached regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take a
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Natural England
15 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Exeter City Council information in relation to suppliers contracted to provide goods and services to the Council. The Council provided parts of the information requested and withheld the remainder because it considered that it was exempt under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA in relation to the withheld part of the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require any step to be taken as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0215 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Exeter City Council
15 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Northampton County Council for all documents which relate to the investigations of the Adult Safeguarding Team following the death of her mother. The Council initially refused to disclose some of the information it holds in reliance on section 40(2) of the FOIA, on the grounds that the withheld information constitutes the personal data of third part individuals. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council also confirmed its additional reliance on section 41(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northampton County Council has properly applied sections 40(2) and 41(1)(a) of the FOIA to the information it is withholding.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41(1)
View Northamptonshire County Council
12 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the awarding of a contract, including the options report, valuation report and legal advice. East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) provided some information but refused to provide the remaining information on the basis of the exceptions at regulation 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied the cited exceptions to the remaining information and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner requires no steps but does expect the Trust to disclose the additional information it is no longer seeking to withhold as set out in its submissions to the Commissioner. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0200 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust
12 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Through three, multi-part requests the complainant requested information associated with car parking matters. Richard Huish College (‘the College’) released some information and released further information during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The College breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not communicate to the complainant all the relevant information it holds within 20 working days of receiving the requests. The College has now complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA and the Commissioner does not require it to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
12 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
1. The complainant has requested information about noise mitigation measures in relation to a planning application. South Buckinghamshire District Council explained that it did not hold the requested information.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, South Buckinghamshire District Council does not hold the requested information. She therefore considers that it has cited regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIR appropriately. The Commissioner also considers that South Buckinghamshire District Council has cited regulation 12(4)(c) (requests formulated in too general a manner) of the EIR appropriately. However, the Commissioner considers that South Buckinghamshire District Council has breached regulation 5(2) (Duty to make available environmental information on request).
3. The Commissioner does not require South Buckinghamshire District Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(c); EIR 5(2)
View South Hams District Council
11 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Council regarding a concern submitted by an individual about a dog at the complainant’s property. The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 30, 40 and 41 of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 40 of the FOIA to the requested information. As that section applies to all of the requested information, the Commissioner did not consider the Council’s application of the other sections of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
11 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names of the examiners who assessed the PhD thesis of President Tsai Ing-wen, the President of the Republic of China, and the date on which the thesis was assessed. The University of London (‘the University’) has withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considers it to be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The University is entitled to withhold the information the complainant has requested under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it is the personal data of third persons and disclosing it would be unlawful. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any remedial steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2020/0212 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
11 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence exchanged with two particular hunts. The Forestry Commission refused the request as manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Forestry Commission has failed to demonstrate why Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is engaged and is therefore not entitled to rely on the exception. The Commissioner requires the Forestry Commissioner to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, to the request, which does not rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Forestry Commission
10 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a review of sentencing policy. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to apply the exemption at section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0207 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
10 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Humberside Police’s policies and procedures relating to Body Warn Video. The Commissioner’s investigation established that Humberside Police held information falling within the scope of the request which it did not disclose when responding to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is, therefore, that by failing to disclose information which was not exempt, within 20 working days, Humberside Police breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. As the complainant now has a copy of the information in question, the Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Humberside Police
10 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Bristol City Council (“the Council”) regarding money spent resurfacing an area of road outside the Mayor’s home address. The Council refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the Council was therefore entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Bristol City Council
10 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes from a round table discussion between the shipping industry and government ministers. The Department for Transport (DfT) provided a list of attendees but withheld the contents of the minutes under section 35(1)(a) – formulation and development of government policy and section 35(1)(d) – operation of a Ministerial private office. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(d) is not engaged. Section 35(1)(a) is engaged and for the majority of this information the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However in respect of a very limited amount of the information the public interest favours disclosure and therefore the DfT cannot rely on section 35(1)(a) to withhold that information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information which cannot be withheld under section 35(1)(a).
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 35(1)(d)
View Department for Transport
9 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council for all forms of recorded information associated with its Register of Members Interests, in particular that information which concerns the Council and councillors who registered as members of UKIP or the Brexit Party. The Council refused to comply with the complainant’s request in reliance on the exemption to disclosure provided by section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council has correctly applied the section 40(2) exemption to the information it holds which falls within the terms of the complainant’s request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0217 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
9 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking correspondence between it and the University of Southampton about a particular archive. He subsequently requested a schedule of all of the correspondence falling within the scope of the request. The Cabinet Office disclosed one email and sought to withhold further information on the basis of sections 21 (information reasonable accessible to the requester) and 40(2) (personal data). It subsequently disclosed the information previously withheld on the basis of section 21. The complainant sought to challenge the Cabinet Office’s reliance on section 40, argued that it held further information falling within the scope of his request and was dissatisfied with the Cabinet Office’s failure to provide him with a schedule of the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office