9 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Wiltshire Council for a copy of all Brexit planning risk and impact assessments held by the Council, which were not publicly available when he made his request. The Council initially relied on sections 21 and 22 of the FOIA on the grounds that the requested information is either already available on the Council’s website or is intended for future publication. Following the Commissioner’s intervention in this matter, the Council determined that parts of its Brexit Readiness Review document should be withheld in reliance on section 41(1) of the FOIA because that information had been provided to the Council by third parties with the expectation of confidence. The Commissioner has decided that Wiltshire Council has correctly applied the exemption provided by section 21 of the FOIA to the information requested by the complainant which was already published on the Council’s website at the time it received the request. The Commissioner has decided that the Council wa
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 22; FOI 41
View Wiltshire 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
9 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding council committees and decision making. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Lydd Town Council is not withholding any information in scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0209 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ilkley Town Council
9 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant, on behalf of Langley Park Primary School Action Group, made four requests for information to Langley Park Learning Trust (“the Trust”). The Trust provided some information, but withheld some information falling within the scope of the requests under the following sections of the FOIA: section 40(2) – third party personal data, section 36(2) – prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs, and/or section 43(2) – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is all of the withheld information which has been provided to her for consideration was correctly withheld under either section 36(2)(b)(ii) or section 40(2). However, the Commissioner is not persuaded that the Trust correctly identified the scope of the complainant’s request of 23 March 2019, for the reasons set out in this notice. In failing to seek clarification about this, it breached the requirements of section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 36; FOI 40(2)
8 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding resurfacing works and road markings. The Lancashire County Council initially stated it had disclosed all of the information in scope of the request, except one element which was withheld on the basis of FOIA section 42, for which it subsequently agreed that the EIR is the appropriate legislation and therefore changed its response to cite regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(d). The council also changed its position to state that it could only locate records from 2017 onwards to part of the request, and cited regulation 12(4)(b) in this respect. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire County Council is entitled to rely upon 12(4)(b) for records held prior to 2017 and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exception. She also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, it has located all information in scope of the request from 2017 onwards. The Commissioner found that regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged, however, the public in
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Lancashire County Council
8 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the decision making process which led to the selection of certain land sites for development. Mid Sussex District Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs – section 36 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council reconsidered the request under the EIR and applied the exception for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)) to withhold the same information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Mid Sussex District Council has correctly withheld information under regulation 12(4)(e) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception but that, in handling the request under the FOIA, it breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0216 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
View Mid Sussex District Council
8 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names of the parties that had entered into non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) with HS2. HS2 refused to disclose the information citing section 36 (opinion of the qualified person), section 41 (confidential information) and section 40(2) personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 41 is not engaged. Although the exemption at section 36 is engaged, the public interest favours disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner has also found that personal information has been correctly withheld under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose the names of the parties that signed NDAs, apart from the names of individuals that signed them in their personal capacity. Where an individual has signed on behalf of an organisation their name should be redacted, leaving only the organisation’s name.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
8 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for information to Exeter City Council (“the Council”) relating to Pinhoe Community Hub, a project to provide improved facilities for the community in Pinhoe, Exeter. The Council initially refused the first request under section 14(2) of the FOIA – repeated requests. After reconsidering the request, the Council provided some of the information within its scope, but withheld some names, addresses and signatures under section 40(2) – third party personal data. Regarding the second request, which related to an internal audit report, the Council disclosed part of the report, but withheld the majority of it under all three limbs of section 36(2) – prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the personal information falling within the scope of the first request under section 40(2). Regarding the second request, for the internal audit report, the Commissioner has determined that th
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Exeter City Council
8 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in relation to a planning application and an associated lighting condition. The Commissioner’s decision is that Milton Keynes Council has, on the balance of probabilities, located all the information held in scope of the request. The Commissioner’s also finds that the council was entitled to rely on the exceptions at regulation 12(4)(e) and regulation 13 to withhold information. However, the Commissioner finds that the council breached regulation 5(2) in failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
View Milton Keynes Council
8 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the DWP about safeguarding visits. The DWP did not respond to the request within 20 working days and the Commissioner therefore finds it in breach of section 10 of FOIA. No further steps are to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
5 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested University Programme Approval Committee records, meeting records and information about an exemption in City, University of London’s Senate Regulations. City, University of London (‘City’) released some information (redacting personal data under section 40(2) of the FOIA) and advised it had been unable to locate other relevant information – a particular report. City’s position is that the report that the complainant is seeking does not exist. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, City does not hold the Stage 1 report that the complainant is seeking, or any Stage 2 report. It has communicated to the complainant all the information it holds that is relevant to his request and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require City to take any remedial steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2020/0214 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View City of London
5 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an Employment Tribunal hearing. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council did not comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (Vexatious requests) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council has applied section 14(1) appropriately. However, she considers that it has breached section 10(1) (Time for compliance) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 14(1)
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
4 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about council-owned blocks. The London Borough of Enfield provided some information but refused to provide the remainder because it stated that the information was already reasonably accessible to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Enfield is entitled to rely on section 21 of the FOIA to withhold the information. She does however find that the London Borough failed to cite this exemption within 20 working days and thus breached section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0192 disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 21
View Enfield Council
4 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested addresses, postcodes and unit ownership information about local authority-owned blocks. The London Borough of Havering provided some information but withheld the full addresses and postcodes which it believed were the personal data of the homeowners. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough has not applied section 40(2) of the FOIA correctly to all of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the full address and postcode of each block that it owns containing six or more units.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View London Borough of Havering
4 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about council-owned blocks. The London Borough of Croydon provided a significant quantity of information but withheld some low numbers which, it stated, could not be disclosed without revealing personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Croydon has not applied section 40(2) of the FOIA correctly to some of the withheld information. She also finds that the London Borough failed to issue a refusal notice, or to provide the requested information within 20 working days. Therefore the London Borough breached sections 10 and 17 of the FOIA in responding to this request. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, the data it has withheld in respect of blocks with six or more units in total. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0227 disposed of by consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View London Borough of Croydon
4 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a serious incident report. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold most, but not all of the information. The Commissioner requires the Trust 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 40
View Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust
4 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the notes of an interview with an outgoing Chief Executive. The Financial Conduct Authority initially withheld the requested information, citing sections 40(2) and 44 of the FOIA, before latterly noting that some of the information was already in the public domain. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA failed to issue, within 20 working days, a refusal notice specifying all the exemptions on which it eventually came to rely. She therefore finds that the FCA breached section 17 of the FOIA in responding to the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Financial Conduct Authority
3 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about audio tapes from West Yorkshire Police (“WYP”). WYP advised that to comply with the request would exceed the cost limit at section 12 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP was entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request and met its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA. However, WYP breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time limit. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View West Yorkshire Police
2 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested agendas and minutes of governors’ meetings held at Christ Church and St Peter’s Primary School, Leicester (“the school”) during the academic year 2018 – 2019. The school is a member of a multi-academy trust, Diocese of Leicester Academies Trust (“the Trust”) which is, therefore, the public authority with responsibility for fulfilling the request. The Trust provided the minutes, but redacted some information from them under section 40(2) of the FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust withheld some information correctly. However, the Commissioner has determined that some of the withheld information is not personal data within the definition at section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018, and was therefore withheld incorrectly. She has also determined that other parts of the withheld information, while being personal data, may lawfully be disclosed, for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner requires the Trust to
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View DIOCESE OF CHICHESTER ACADEMY TRUST
2 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Swaleside Prison and the Chaplaincy. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) disclosed information in response to the multi-part request. The complainant believed that it held more information within the scope of one part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ has disclosed to the complainant all the information it holds falling within the scope of that part of his request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
2 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested environmental assessments associated with Phase 1 of the HS2 high-speed rail project at Packington Moor Farm and Flats Lane, near Lichfield. High Speed Two Limited (HS2 Ltd) has withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material still in the course of completion) and regulation 13(1) (personal data). HS2 Ltd considers the public interest favours maintaining the former exception. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The requested information engages the exception at regulation 12(4)(d) and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require HS2 Ltd to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
2 Jun 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a risk assessment and evidence associated with the Charity Commission’s decision not to progress a complaint he had submitted to it about a charity. The Charity Commission (‘the Commission’) has withheld the information under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA (law enforcement) and considers that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information that the Commission is withholding is exempt information under section 31(1)(g) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the Commission to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0194 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Charity Commission
2 Jun 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Highways England the underlying data regarding bridge condition index scores for the five years prior to his request. Highways England, having provided some summary information in response to his initial request, refused to provide the underlying data, withholding it under sections 24 and 36 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Highways England responded to the request under the wrong access scheme and that the response should have been in line with the EIR. She also finds that Highways England’s application of Regulation 12(5)(a) is not engaged. Additionally, the Commissioner has found that the public authority breached Regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose the datasets containing individual bridge conditions for the last five calendar years prior to the req
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 14(2)(1)
View National Highways
1 Jun 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to penalty charges associated with a specified toll bridge. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) said that it had responded to the request as ‘business as usual’ rather than under FOIA. Ultimately, it provided more details to the complainant during the investigation, although he remained dissatisfied with some of the information provided. The Commissioner cannot consider the accuracy of the information supplied, but has investigated the FOIA aspects, namely whether the request under consideration was valid for the purposes of section 8 (request for information) and whether the MOJ has provided the information it holds in accordance with section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was valid for the purposes of section 8 of FOIA. She also finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the MOJ has provided the information it holds in relation to this request. The Commi
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 8
View Ministry of Justice
27 May 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all of the information held by Bristol City Council (the council) that relates to a dispute over a particular barge, and also the council’s proposed purchase of that barge. The council refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it would exceed the cost of compliance to do so (section 12 of the FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) as its basis for refusing to comply with the request. She is also satisfied that the council has met its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA by offering advice and assistance to the complainant. 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 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Bristol City Council
27 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to how a reserve fund will be spent. Edith Weston Parish Council (the council) confirmed, after its internal review, that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the information is not held. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
27 May 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a five-part request for information regarding infill at the northern end of West Waterloo Docks in Liverpool. Liverpool City Council (the Council) provided some information in response to the request and confirmed that some information was not held. However, the Commissioner finds that the information provided by the Council did not fall within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a refusal notice within 20 working days and it breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to conduct an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(1)
View Liverpool City Council
26 May 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the ‘Empowering mothers against radicalisation’ project funded by Manchester City Council. The Council provided some information but refused the remainder citing sections 24(1) – national security and 43(2) – commercial interests of the FOIA. On review the Council maintained its reliance on section 24(1) and added section 38(1) – health and safety, but dropped the application of section 43(2), saying it did not hold the information to which it applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that Manchester City Council is entitled to rely on section 24(1) to withhold the information, and as a result it has not been necessary to consider the application of section 38(1). She concludes that on the balance of probability, the Council does not hold the remainder of the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 24
View Manchester City Council
26 May 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information, in a four-part request, relating to meetings Hampshire Police held with the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner, together with details of complaints / allegations, associated correspondence and actions taken. Hampshire Constabulary provided some of the requested information. It refused to provide the remainder citing section 12(1) of FOIA, as to do so would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of FOIA. She finds that Hampshire Constabulary did not comply with its section 16 of FOIA obligations, in that it did not provide advice and assistance to the complainant in relation to how he might refine his request with a view to bringing it within the cost limit. However, the additional explanation provided in this decision notice means that it is no longer required to do so. No steps are required to ensure compliance with t
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
26 May 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the ‘Empowering mothers against grooming and radicalisation project’ funded by Leeds City Council. The Council provided some information falling within the scope of the request but refused the remainder, citing section 24(1) -safeguarding of national security and 31(1)a – prevention and detection of crime, of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council is entitled to rely on section 24(1) to withhold the information, and therefore she did not need consider the application of section 31(1)a. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 24
View Leeds City Council
26 May 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about false passports from the Home Office (the “HO”). The HO advised that to comply with the request would exceed the cost limit at section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HO was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA. She does however find a breach of section 16(1)(advice and assistance) of the FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
26 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to details of the company, or companies, providing private security to a Cheshire Hunt. Cheshire Constabulary refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(2) (cost of compliance) of the FOIA to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire Constabulary was entitled to cite section 12(2). She also found that there is no breach of section 16(1) (advice and assistance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0186 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Cheshire Constabulary
26 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a government-led national drugs strategy from Sunderland City Council (“SCC”). The Commissioner’s decision is that, based on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, SCC does not hold the requested information. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0204 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Sunderland City Council
22 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Nuffield College (the college) to disclose any documents relating to work undertaken by Professor Duch with Cambridge Analytica (CA) relating to Argentina in 2015 and any other projects with CA and SCL Elections Ltd (SCL) during 2014-2018. The college refused to comply with the request, advising the complainant that it does not hold the requested information for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the college does not hold the requested information for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
22 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Oldham Council (“the council”) regarding details of residential properties that it owns. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to withhold part of the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Oldham Council
22 May 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Great Wakering Parish Council (“the Council”), information in relation to complaints made about the local burial ground. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information. However, by failing to confirm this to the complainant within the statutory time period of 20 working days, the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
21 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the circulation list for reports produced by the Extremism Analysis Unit. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
21 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from West Berkshire Council (“the Council”) information regarding the agenda papers and minutes of the Environment Advisory Group (EAG) and the Transport Advisory Group (TAG). The Council responded to the request under the FOIA. It withheld the information under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. During the investigation, the Council was directed by the Commissioner to reconsider the request under the EIR. The Council reconsidered the request and applied regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) to withhold the information. The Commissioner finds that the Council initially handled the request incorrectly under the FOIA and in doing so breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to the withheld information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to ta
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View West Berkshire Council
21 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Council regarding a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) that the Council issued against itself in respect of one of its own vehicles. The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 40 of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 40 to part of the requested information, however it is not engaged in respect of the remaining information, which is publicly available and reasonably accessible to the applicant, therefore section 21 of the FOIA should have been applied.
3. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0182 disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View London Borough of Havering
20 May 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Public Authority: Office of the North Yorkshire Police, Fire and Crime CommissionerSummary wording for website: The complainant requested information from the Office of the North Yorkshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner about the sale of a registration mark. The Office of the North Yorkshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner did not respond to the request within 20 working days in accordance with its obligations under section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
20 May 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the implementation of Project Servator. Dyfed Powys Police provided some information, but withheld other information under sections 24 and 31 of the FOIA. It also refused to confirm or deny whether it held other information by virtue of section 23(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Dyfed Powys Police has correctly applied section 24(1) to the remaining withheld information. However, in failing to respond to the request within the required timescale she finds that Dyfed Powys Police breached section 10. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 24
View Dyfed-Powys Police
20 May 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to a Library and Community Hub, a Trust and two named Councils. Desborough Town Council (the council) refused both the initial request and refined request under section 12(1) of the FOIA – appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(1) of the FOIA is engaged and that the council has provided appropriate advice and assistance as per section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner also found that the council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA with regards to the time it took to respond to the complainant’s initial request. As a response has been provided and the refusal upheld, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
20 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from South Kesteven District Council (SKDC) about legal opinions and other legal documents and related correspondence, internal and external, that the Council had in its possession in mid-2017 regarding its opinion on its attitude to public safety in Non-Hazardous Developments. He also asked for information relating to the termination of the employment of three former senior officers of SKDC. The Commissioner’s decision is that SKDC has complied with FOIA in relying on the section 40(2) (personal information) FOIA exemption to withhold some information and with section 1(1) FOIA in saying that it holds no further undisclosed information. She does not require SKDC to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0185 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View South Kesteven District Council
20 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made multiple requests for information about the policing of fox hunting activities by Leicestershire Police. Leicestershire Police decided that the requests were vexatious and refused to comply with them, relying on the section 14(1) (vexatious requests) FOIA exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and that Leicestershire Police had acted correctly in refusing them. The Commissioner did not require Leicestershire Police to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Leicestershire Police
19 May 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the level of fees the General Chiropractic Council (GCC) has paid to an expert. The GCC withheld the information, citing the exemption under sections 31(1), 36, 40 and 43(2) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GCC has correctly engaged the section 43(2) exemption and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10 of the FOIA, as the GCC failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time limits. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View General Chiropractic Council
19 May 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a CCTV system. Ammanford Town Council provided some information and stated that it did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to comply with its duties under section 1(1) of the FOIA within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
18 May 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 8
View Ministry of Justice
18 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the Council) information relating to Empowering Minds Consultancy Ltd. The request was in six parts. The Council complied with part 1 of the request, but cited section 14(2) (repeated requests) of the FOIA and refused the other parts of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 14(2) of the FOIA to part 5 of the request. However, with regards to parts 2, 3, 4 and 6 the Commissioner considers that section 14(2) was incorrectly applied.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Issue a fresh response to parts 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(2)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
15 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Cambridge University Press (‘the Press’) is the publishing business of the University of Cambridge. Although it is operationally separate from the Academic University – having its own executive board, HR, IT, legal and finance departments – it is not corporately separate from the University (eg a trading subsidiary). As such, although this decision notice is served on the Council of the University of Cambridge, it concerns the Press and the Press is discussed throughout. The complainant requested information about the Press’ handling of previous information requests he had submitted to it. The Press released some information and is relying on sections 21 (information accessible to the complainant) section 40 (personal data) and section 42 (legal professional privilege) to withhold the remaining relevant information that it holds. The complainant is dissatisfied with the Press’ reliance on section 42 to withhold some of the information he has requested. The Commissioner’s decision is a
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View The University of Cambridge
15 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation carried out by the council into a charity, Help Bristol's Homeless. The council provided some information, however it withheld other information on the basis that section 40(2) and section 31(1)(g) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 31(1)(g) to withhold the information and that the public interest rests in the exemption being maintained. She has not therefore found it necessary to consider the application of section 40(2) further in this instance. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)
View Bristol City Council