14 May 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific Parish Council and the Cabinet Office. Initially the Cabinet Office advised that it held information but that it required further time to consider the public interest in respect of section 42 (legal professional privilege exemption). It sent a second letter to the complainant saying the same thing. The Commissioner then served a decision notice on the Cabinet Office requiring it to provide a response to this request. It did so out of time and cited section 12 (cost of compliance with the request) as its basis for not responding to the request. The Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 12 as its basis for refusing to respond to the request. However in failing to tell the complainant that it was relying on section 12 within the time for compliance, the Cabinet Office failed to comply with its obligations under section 17(5). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Cabinet Office
14 May 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested photographs of a neighbouring property taken by the Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) when assessing whether it met with permitted development rules. He also requested copies of the notes written by officers assessing the development. He considers that the council may not have assessed the development properly. The council applied Regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests), and Regulation 13(1) (personal data of third parties) and stated that it held no information in relation to officer’s notes (Regulation 12(4)(a)). However, during the course of the Commissioner's investigation it carried out further searches and provided the complainant with an electronic copy of the officer’s notes. Aylesbury Vale District Council merged with other authorities to become Buckinghamshire Council on 1 April 2020. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) to the information. She has also decided that the counc
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2)
14 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Newcastle City Council (‘the Council’) information relating to communications about the removal of the Nakba exhibition. The Council provided responses to some parts of the request and withheld information within the scope of the remaining parts of the request under section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 41(1) 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/2020/0197 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View Newcastle City Council
12 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Wiltshire Council (‘the Council’) information relating to a housing association. The Council refused to disclose the requested information and cited section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 42(1) of the FOIA to withhold the information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Wiltshire Council
12 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding an agreement to swap land between Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators (WPCC) and a neighbouring Golf Club. WPCC refused to comply with the request on the basis that it was ‘manifestly unreasonable’ and cited regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that WPCC is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with the request and that in the circumstances of this case, the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0190 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
12 May 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested communications sent between Hastings Borough Council (the council), and the owners of a local caravan park about a ‘joint cost survey’ into the stability of land which was affected by a landslip. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) as its basis for withholding some of the requested information, and the public interest rests in favour of maintaining this exception. With regards to the remaining information held relevant to the request, the Commissioner has concluded that regulation 12(5)(e) is not engaged. Furthermore, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days. In addition, the council has also breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to provide its internal review response within the required 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose a redacted version of the report and
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
11 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested contract values and related information about its 11-plus testing from the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring (“CEM”) of the University of Cambridge (the “university”). The university withheld the requested information under section 43(2) of the FOIA as it considered release to be commercially prejudicial. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has appropriately cited section 43(2) to withhold this information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
NB It has been drawn to the Commissioner’s attention by the public authority that the concluding section of this Decision Notice ‘Other matters’ is inaccurate. It transpires that the internal review was conducted by a separate person to the original refusal notice and that the Commissioner was in error regarding this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View The University of Cambridge
11 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested inspection reports in respect of a kennels belonging to a hunt. The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. During the Commissioner’s investigation APHA also applied section 31 – law enforcement, to the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that APHA is entitled to withhold the reports under section 40(2). As this provides grounds for withholding the entirety of the information the Commissioner has not gone on to consider the application of section 31. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Animal and Plant Health Agency
11 May 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of correspondence sent between a named officer at Hastings Borough Council (the council) and a geotechnical engineering company within a specified time period. Whilst the council provided the complainant with copies of some emails, it redacted certain information which it regarded to fall outside the scope of the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council confirmed that it had, in error, failed to release a copy of an email dated 23 January 2015 in response to the request. The Commissioner has decided that part of the information redacted by the council falls within the scope of the request and should have been supplied to the complainant. She also regards there to be a small amount of additional information that is relevant to the request which the council failed to consider for disclosure. It is the Commissioner’s decision that this information should also be released to the complainant. Whilst the council did provide some informati
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Hastings Borough Council
7 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about parking issues. Wiltshire Police did not comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (Vexatious request) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Wiltshire Police has applied section 14(1) of the FOIA appropriately.
The Commissioner does not require Wiltshire Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Wiltshire Police
6 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information about a request from the United Nations (UN) request to certain member states to appoint an independent and high ranking official to review relevant files they may hold about the plane crash that killed UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold in 1961. The FCO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 23(1) (security bodies) or 24(1) (national security), 27(1)(a), (b) and (c) (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO is entitled to rely on sections 27(1), 35(1)(a) and 40(2) to withhold parts of the withheld information. She has also concluded that that remaining parts of the withheld information are exempt from disclosure on the basis of either section 23(1) (security bodies) or sec
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27; FOI 35; FOI 40
6 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an investigation into a fatal shooting. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the IOPC was entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
6 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a whistleblowing concern sent to the CQC. The CQC withheld some of the information on the basis of section 40(2), 44(1)(a) and 31(1)(g). The CQC also refused to confirm or deny if some of the information was held under the exclusions at these same exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CQQ has correctly withheld information at parts a) and b) of the request under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA and has correctly refused to either confirm or deny if the information at parts c), d) and e) is held by virtue of the exclusion at section 31(3) of the FOIA. She does not require the CQC to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2020/0189 Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View CQC
6 May 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (the MHCLG) relating to a submission regarding the development of a garden community/village in his area. The MHCLG initially refused the request, applying section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (formulation and development of government policy). However, it subsequently provided information. The complainant believes that further information is held, however. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG has, on a balance of probabilities, provided the complainant with all of the information which it holds falling within the scope of the request. She has however decided that the MHCLG did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) in that it did not provide the information to the complainant within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the MHCLG to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
6 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a court case involving Surrey Police. Surrey Police provided some information within the scope of the request, but refused to provide the remainder, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated Surrey Police’s application of section 40(2) to the withheld information within the scope of part (1) of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Surrey Police
6 May 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a decision to house sex offenders at Hollesley Bay open prison in Suffolk. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has appropriately applied the exemption at section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) of the FOIA. However, the public interest favours disclosure of some of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the complainant with a copy of the information specified in the confidential annex to this decision notice, with personal information redacted in accordance with the Commissioner’s guidance on third party personal data.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
5 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding applications submitted to participate in the Non-Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (the scheme). Ofgem refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem was entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner finds that the public interest lies in maintaining Ofgem’s application of this exception. She also finds that Ofgem complied with regulation 9 of the EIR (advice and assistance). The Commissioner does not require Ofgem to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0191 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
5 May 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the release times of prisoners from a specified prison in March 2019, together with emails between 16 and 23 March 2019 concerning the release of a named prisoner from that prison. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) initially cited section 40(2) – personal information in relation to the release times and provided copies of the requested emails with redactions for personal information. The complainant confirmed his complaint centred only on the prisoner release times. Ultimately, the MOJ revised its position and provided him with some of the requested times for March 2019, but withheld the remainder, citing sections 31(1)(f) (the maintenance of security and good order in prisons) and 38(1)(a) (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither section 31(1(f) nor section 38(1)(a) is engaged in relation to the remaining withheld information. Her position is set out in a confidential annex which will be provided to the MOJ only. The Commissi
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 38
View Ministry of Justice
5 May 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Halton Borough Council which concerns live business rates accounts with a value greater than or equal to £5,000. The Council has refused the complainant’s request in reliance on section 40(2) of the FOIA on the grounds that the information is the personal data of third parties, and also in reliance on section 41(1) of the FOIA, on the grounds that the requested information was provided to the Council in confidence. The Commissioner has decided that the Council is not able to rely on the exemption provided by section 40(2). This is because the recorded information does not satisfy the definition of personal data provided by the Data Protection Act 2018. However, the Commissioner has also decided that the Council has correctly applied the exemption provided by section 41 of the FOIA to the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View Halton Council
5 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the Borough Council of Wellingborough (“the Council”) information in relation to the safety of a 3G rubber crumb football pitch. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council holds no further information in relation to the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0201 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
5 May 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Lilleshall Parish Council in respect of land lying to the South East of Barrack Lane, Lilleshall, known as Builder’s Yard. The Commissioner has decided that Lilleshall Parish Council has complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR but has contravened Regulation5(2).
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
5 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the council’s award of contract to a company, Avanti School’s Trust (AST), to run a school in the county. The council provided the majority of the information however it withheld some information from disclosure, applying section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests), and section 40(2)(personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply sections 43(2) and section 40(2) to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0187 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
View Hertfordshire County Council
4 May 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation being carried out by the council into activities at a property, near to where he lives, which he considers are breaching licencing requirements. The council refused the request on the basis that section 30(1)(b) of the Act applied (Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 30(1)(b) to withhold the requested information. She has however decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) in that it did not respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 30
View Newcastle City Council
4 May 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with an article published on the Open University’s ‘OpenLearn’ resource. The Open University’s position is that it does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Open University does not hold the requested information and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Open University breached section 10(1) however, as it did not confirm it does not hold the requested information within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Commissioner does not require the Open University to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
4 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Wycombe District Council (the Council), which has since been replaced by the new Buckinghamshire Council, information relating to the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) award regarding Princes Risborough. The Council refused the request under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0188 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
4 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted four requests to the London Borough of Haringey (the Council) seeking information about whether two named organisations had received funding to deliver Prevent training and programmes. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the requests on the basis of sections 24(2) (national security), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 43(3) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council is entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of each of the requests and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining this exemption in each case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Haringey Council
4 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the London Borough of Brent (the Council) seeking information about whether two named organisations had received funding to deliver Prevent training and programmes. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of either request on the basis of sections 24(2) (national security), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 43(3) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council is entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA 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
4 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) seeking information about whether name organisation had received funding to deliver Prevent training and programmes. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 24(2) (national security), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 43(3) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council is entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA 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 Redbridge Council
4 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted four requests to the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) seeking information about whether two named organisations had received funding to deliver Prevent training and programmes. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the requests on the basis of sections 24(2) (national security), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 43(3) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council is entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of each of the requests and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining this exemption in each case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View London Borough of Lambeth
4 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a planning enforcement case. Carmarthenshire County Council (‘the Council’) applied the exception at regulation 13(5) to neither confirm nor deny whether any information is held, and maintained its position in its review of the decision. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply section 13(5) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5)
View Carmarthenshire County Council
1 May 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence that relates to a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) issued by Hastings Borough Council (the council). The council refused the request under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) as its basis for withholding the requested information, and the public interest rests in favour of maintaining this exception. However, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached regulation 14(2) by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days. In addition, the council has also breached regulation 11(4) by failing to provide its internal review response within the required 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
1 May 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the audio recording of a Professional Conduct Panel hearing into a case against five teachers. The request was refused by the Department for Education (the DfE) under section 40(2), 31(2) and 14 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied the section 40(2) exemption to the request and there is no lawful basis for disclosing the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for Education
1 May 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to certain comments that were included in correspondence sent by Hastings Borough Council (the council) to the Local Government Ombudsman (the LGO). The complainant has confirmed that he has now received the information that he required. However, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it failed to provide any information in response to the complainant’s request within 20 working days. In addition, the council also breached regulation 11(4) as it failed to provide its internal review response within the required 40 working days. The Commisisoner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2)
View Hastings Borough Council
1 May 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about council-owned buildings. The London Borough of Barnet provided some information but the complainant argued that it was not what she asked for. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough has complied with its duty under section 1(1)(b) of the FOIA because it has provided the information which it holds. However, it failed to comply with this duty within 20 working days and thus breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0184 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 11
View Barnet Council
30 Apr 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of photographs taken of signage in a particular car park. The Commissioner’s decision is that Carmarthenshire County Council (‘the Council’) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. However, as the Council has now provided the complainant with a response, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Carmarthenshire County Council
28 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests for information to Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) in relation to car parking matters managed by the Council and data held by the Council regarding equality. In relation to the first request, the Council provided some information, but refused to comply with the remainder of the request under section 12(1) (costs) of the FOIA. With regards to the second request, it disclosed part of the information requested, withheld part of it citing section 22(1) (information intended for future publication) of the FOIA and stated that it did not hold the remainder of the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on section 12(1) of the FOIA when it refused to comply with parts 12-17 of the first information request; correctly stated that it did not hold information in recorded form within the scope of part 6 of the second information request; and as the withheld information under section 22
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12
View Oldham Council
28 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding animal right activists. The Attorney General’s Office did not comply with the request, citing section 12(1) (costs exceeding the cost limit) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that although section 12 of the FOIA applies, the Attorney General’s Office should have applied section 12(2) (‘neither confirm nor deny’ on cost grounds) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require the Attorney General’s Office to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Attorney General's Office
28 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested email correspondence between a law firm and University College London (UCL) about an academic at UCL. UCL has disclosed some relevant information and has withheld the remainder under section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 41 (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. UCL had originally considered section 42 (legal professional privilege) was engaged but withdrew its reliance on this exemption in the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information UCL is withholding can be categorised as information provided in confidence and so can be withheld under section 41(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require UCL to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View University College London
28 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from House of Commons (“HOC") information on all web sites accessed from the parliamentary network. HoC relied on Section 31 (law enforcement) and Section 24 (national security) to withhold requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that HoC correctly relied on section 31 to withhold requested information that it held or otherwise did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
27 Apr 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about fabricated crime reports from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS advised that to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to cite section 12(2) but she does find a breach of section 16(1) (advice and assistance). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
27 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about digital device extraction technology in a three-part request. Ultimately, he was concerned only with Cheshire Constabulary’s handling of part one of that request. Cheshire Constabulary refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 31(1)(a) – the exemption for the prevention or detection of crime and 31(1)(b) – the exemption for the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. It maintained that the balance of the public interest lay in withholding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire Constabulary was correct to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b) in relation to part one of the request, and to conclude that the balance of the public interest test favoured maintaining the exemption. Her full position is set out in a confidential annex which will be provided to Cheshire Constabulary only. No steps are required to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Cheshire Constabulary
27 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a multi-part request for information relating to correspondence between the Home Office and the Duke and Duchess of York about Mr Jeffrey Epstein. The Home Office 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 Home Office is entitled to rely on section 12(2) as its basis for refusing to comply with the request. She also found that there is no breach of section 16(1) (duty to provide advice and assistance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
27 Apr 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the sale of a specific car number-plate. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Yorkshire Police failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10(1) (time for compliance with request) of the FOIA. As the response has been provided, the Commissioner does not require North Yorkshire Police to take any steps in relation to this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View North Yorkshire Police
24 Apr 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to ECT, serious incidents, restraints and seclusion. The Trust provided information relating to ECT but refused to comply with the requests relating to serious incidents, restraints and seclusions as it said it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was correct to apply section 12 FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the requests. The Commissioner does not however consider that the Trust provided the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0163 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View East London NHS Foundation Trust
23 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to a public service contract. Wakefield Council (the council) refused the request relying on section 43(2) of the FOIA – commercial interests - and section 36 of the FOIA - Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs. During the Commissioner’s investigations the council provided a redacted version of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) of the FOIA is engaged to the redacted information. As section 43(2) of the FOIA is engaged, the Commissioner has not gone on to consider section 36 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
23 Apr 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from North Lincolnshire Council (the Council) information in relation to a planning application. The Council provided some information and stated that it did not hold the remainder.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has, on the balance of probabilities, disclosed all the information it held within the scope of the request, at the time it was submitted; breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide information it held within 20 working days; and 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 step as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View North Lincolnshire Council
22 Apr 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Tendring District Council information about business rate account credit balances and write-ons for a named property. Tendring District Council withheld the information relying on the section 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement) FOIA exemption.
The Commissioner decided that Tendring District Council had correctly applied the section 31(1)(a) FOIA exemption to the withheld information and did not require it to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Tendring District Council
22 Apr 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Hastings Borough Council (the council) that relates to proposals for a water drainage system following landslips in Hastings Country Park. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) as its basis for withholding some of the requested information, and the public interest rests in favour of maintaining this exception. With regards to all the remaining information held relevant to the request, the Commissioner has concluded that regulation 12(5)(e) is not engaged. Furthermore the Commissioner has found that the council has breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days. In addition, the council has also breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to provide its internal review response within the required 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose part of the information contained within the correspondence that has b
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
21 Apr 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to "criticised experts" or equivalent lists (parts 1 and 2 of the request) and particular guidance documents (parts 3-5 of the request). The CCRC provided information in response to parts 3-5 of the request but made some minimal redactions to third party personal data contained within its guidance under section 40(2) FOIA. It refused to disclose information in relation to parts 1 and 2 of the request under section 40(2) and 44 FOIA. The CCRC also said that some information requested at parts 1 and 2 of the request was reasonably accessible to the applicant and was therefore exempt under section 21 FOIA or in the alternative it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA for CCRC to provide this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCRC has correctly applied section 40(2) to the redacted information. It correctly applied section 40(2) and 44 to the information withheld in full. The CCRC incorrectly applied section
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 14; FOI 21; FOI 40(2); FOI 44
View Criminal Cases Review Commission
20 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of schools and trusts receiving loans or grants from the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) along with the amount of any financial assistance and terms of any repayment. The request was refused under section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied the section 36(2)(c) exemption and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education