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
17 Apr 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Aylesbury District Council (“the Council”), which now forms part of the new Buckinghamshire Council, about the date that a change to the council tax banding for a specific property was approved. The Council initially considered that the request was not a valid request for the purposes of the FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the Council revised its position and issued a response under the FOIA; its position was that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. However, by failing to inform the complainant that it did not hold the information within the statutory time for compliance, it breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Buckinghamshire Council
14 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding an alleged breach of the Insolvency Rules. The Insolvency Service relied on section 21 of the FOIA (reasonably accessible) and section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that any information the Insolvency Service held within the scope of the request, not already in the public domain, would be criminal offence personal data. Therefore not only was the Insolvency Service entitled to withhold any relevant information not already in the public domain, but should in fact have relied upon section 40(5B) of the FOIA and not confirmed (or denied) that it held any additional information in the first place. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The Insolvency Service
14 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The applicant has requested information relating to a complaint made to the Architects Registration Board (ARB). The Commissioner’s decision is that ARB has correctly cited section 14(1) (vexatious requests) in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Architects Registration Board
9 Apr 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a seven part request for information relating to the disciplinary procedure and subsequent appeal carried out by the University Council (the University) following a complaint in April 2018 regarding a group chat involving students at the University. The University refused to provide information falling within the scope of parts five a), b) and c) of the request under section 38(1) (health and safety) and 40(2) (third party personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied the provisions of section 40(2) to withhold the information requested in parts five a), b) and c) of the request. The Commissioner did not go on to consider the University’s application of section 38(1) as she considered that section 40(2) applied to the entirety of the information requested in parts five a), b) and c) of the request. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10 of the FOIA, as the University failed
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
9 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Guildford Borough Council (the Council) information relating to empty, abandoned and/or derelict dwellings within the borough of Guildford. The Council withheld the information under section 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA to the information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Guildford Borough Council
9 Apr 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the DVLA on vehicles that have been charged double payments for vehicle road fund licences. The DVLA initially stated this information was not held but after discussions with the Commissioner accepted that the information may be held but stated that it would exceed the appropriate cost limit to comply. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA has correctly refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA. However, the DVLA has not provided any advice or assistance to the complainant and has therefore failed to comply with its duties under section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to consider if there is any meaningful advice or assistance that can be provided to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
9 Apr 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence which has passed between Cheshire East Council and Jodrell Bank Observatory in respect of certain planning applications identified in her request. The Council identified 10 letters and 2 emails which it refused to disclose to the complainant in reliance on Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. Following the Commissioner’s intervention in this matter, the Council withdrew its application of Regulation 12(4)(e) and disclosed the relevant information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire East Council has complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. By making its disclosure of information after the twenty working day compliance period required by Regulation 5(2), the Council has contravened that provision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Cheshire East Council
8 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to a complaint made about him. The council responded that some information is not held, some information is available on its website and that some information has previously been provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council holds no further information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
8 Apr 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests for information relating to finance which Seascale Parish Council (‘SPC’) had made available for the refurbishment of a local amenity. SPC refused to comply with the requests, on the grounds that they were vexatious within the meaning of section 14 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SPC was entitled to cite section 14 of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the requests. However, in failing to respond to the requests within the 20 working day time for compliance, SPC breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 14
8 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested financial information from Slough Children's Services Trust (“SCST”). SCST has advised that it is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA. It has therefore refused to respond to this request under the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SCST is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA and it was therefore not under an obligation to respond to the request. No steps are required in this case. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2020/0170 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
7 Apr 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) to disclose information relating to an IT trainer vacancy; information including the application forms and supporting information of all those shortlisted, the completed interview question, answer sheets and scorecards for those shortlisted, whether the preferred candidate had previous NHS experience or connections with the CCG and whether they started on the opening salary for the grade. The CCG disclosed some information to the complainant, cited section 12 for one element of the request and refused to disclose the remainder under section 40 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the CCG withdrew it application of section 12 and disclosed the requested information to the complainant. In relation to this element of the request, the Commissioner has recorded a breach of section 1 and 10 of the FOIA, as the CCG failed to disclose information to which the complainant was en
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View NHS Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB
7 Apr 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information provided to Hastings Borough Council (the council) by geotechnical engineers about the causes, and possible stabilisation, of a landslip which had occurred in the local area. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to withhold that information which has been identified as being relevant to the complainant’s request. However, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR as it failed to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days of receipt of the request. In addition, as the council failed to specify in its responses to the complainant what exception it was relying on, or its consideration of the public interest test, it has breached regulation 14(3)(a) and 14(3)(b) of the EIR respectively. The council has also breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR as it did not provide its internal response within the required 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 14(3)(a); EIR 14(3)(b)
View Hastings Borough Council
7 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to development of a facility for online and Post Office service for customers entitled to the reduced rate of vehicle tax. DVLA refused to disclose some of the requested information under section 35(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) FOIA was applied correctly to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0157 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
7 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The applicant has requested contact details of organisations that have paid a levy to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB). The Commissioner’s decision is that AHDB has correctly cited section 40(2) in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
7 Apr 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about damage to the Toddbrook Reservoir spillway from the Canal & River Trust (‘CRT’). He submitted a complaint to the Commissioner as he had not received a response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: CRT breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it did not provide the complainant with a response to his request within 20 working days. CRT has now provided a response to the request and, as such, the Commissioner does not require CRT to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Canal and River Trust
7 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about ‘Leaving Neverland: Michael Jackson and Me’ - a documentary that had been broadcast on Channel 4. Ofcom has withheld information the complainant has requested under section 44(1) of the FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information Ofcom is withholding is exempt from disclosure under section 44(1). The Commissioner does not require Ofcom to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Ofcom
7 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of a number of reports produced by the Extremism Analysis Unit. The Home Office refused the request, citing the exemptions provided by sections 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), 24 (national security), 27 (international relations), 31 (law enforcement), 38 (health and safety) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA to refuse to disclose the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0154 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
7 Apr 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in relation to a planning application. During the Commissioner’s investigation, South Hams District Council disclosed the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that South Hams District Council has complied with regulation 11(4) (Representations and reconsideration) of the EIR. However, the Commissioner considers that South Hams District Council has breached regulations 5(2)(time for compliance) and 14(3) (Refusal to disclose information) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require South Hams District Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0160 struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 14(3); EIR 5(2)
View South Hams District Council
6 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a variety of information from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The information which the complainant seeks relates to a site known as Speckled Wood. On receipt of the complainant’s request, the MHCLG considered it necessary to seek clarification from the complainant as to the specific information he requires. After being given some clarification, the Department provided the complainant with the some of the information or it informed him that certain pieces of information were not held. Additionally, the MHCLG explained why it did not hold certain pieces of information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG responses to the complainant have complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner has also decided that it was reasonable for the MHCLG to seek clarification from the complainant with regards to his request and by doing so it has satisfied the duty imposed by Regulations 9(1) and 9(2) of the EIR. Information T
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 9
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
6 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specific information about the Great Train Robbery from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS advised that to comply with the request would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it clarified that it was relying on section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information in accordance with section 12(2) of the FOIA. She also finds that it complied with its section 16 obligations to provide advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Metropolitan Police Service
6 Apr 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Wandsworth (the London Borough) regarding “LADO referrals”. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. As a response has since been issued to the request, the Commissioner does not require any remedial steps be taken by the London Borough.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Wandsworth
6 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested CCTV footage relating to a murder investigation. Hampshire Constabulary refused the request on the grounds that section 30 (investigations and proceedings) and section 40 (personal information) of the FOIA applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a) of the FOIA to refuse the request. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0183 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
6 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) concerning an evaluation report into the Preventing Maternal Deaths Programme. The report itself was published but a number of detailed country policy analyses were not. The complainant sought a copies of these documents. DFID withheld this information on the basis of the following exemptions within FOIA: section 27(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) (international relations), section 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety), section 40(2) (personal information) and section 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(c) and (d) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Department for International Development
6 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details about a death by dangerous driving that occurred in 1967, from Staffordshire Police (“SP”). SP advised that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, no information is held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Staffordshire Police
3 Apr 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Westminster City Council (“the Council”) regarding costs and details of work completed on a specific property in the borough. The Council responded to say it has provided the information it held within the scope of the request but the complainant believes that there is more. The Commissioner’s decision is that, based on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information that would fall within the scope of the request. However, as the Council responded to the request after 20 working days and released further information even later, it has breached section 10 and section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken by the Council. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0158 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Westminster Council
3 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
3 Apr 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Beccles Town Council (the Council) information regarding the legal advice relating to parking on Beccles Common. The Council refused the request under section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and applied the exceptions for material in the course of completion (regulation 12(4)(d)), the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)) and protection of the environment (regulation 12(5)(g)) to withhold the information.
The Commissioner finds that the Council initially handled the request incorrectly under the FOIA and in so doing breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) 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/2020/0
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
2 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about the UK’s funding of certain projects in Bahrain. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held some information falling within the scope of the request but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Cabinet Office also sought to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any further information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 23(5) (security bodies) and 24(2) (national security) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) to withhold the information. She has also concluded that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on sections 23(5) and 24(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any further information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
2 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department regarding security arrangements for a Tribunal matter. The Department stated that it did not hold some of the requested information, and refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 32 of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department does not hold the requested information which it stated that it does not hold, and that it has correctly applied section 32 of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner also finds that the Department breached section 1(1) of the FOIA as it failed to specify to the complainant that it did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 32
View Department for the Economy (Northern Ireland)
2 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to disclose all the information it holds relating to production and subsequent withdrawal of fixed penalty notices issued at three locations. Initially, the CQC refused to confirm or deny if the recorded information is held citing section 44(2) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, however, this was withdrawn and replaced by section 31(3). The Commissioner’s decision is that the CQC is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether the recorded information is held in accordance with section 31(3) and she is satisfied that the public interest rests in maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not therefore require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0171 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View CQC
2 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the publication details for two ‘Article 13’ planning application notices. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, Arun District Council has located all the information held in scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Arun District Council
2 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) information relating to the outcome of a consultation process conducted by the MHCLG on plans for local government re-organisation in Northamptonshire. The MHCLG refused to provide the information held initially citing section 22(1) of the FOIA (information intended for future publication) and subsequently section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA (formulation or development of government policy). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) as its basis for withholding the remainder of the requested information. As the initially withheld information under section 22(1) of the FOIA was published during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, this decision notice does not cover whether the exemption provided in section 22(1) was applicable. The Commissioner does not require the MHCLG to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
2 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Kent County Council (the Council) information in relation to complaints submitted to the Council and the Council’s Trading Standards office in relation to a specific company. The Council neither confirmed nor denied holding information within the scope of the complainant’s request, citing section 44(2) of the FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure) as its basis for doing so.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied that exemption on the basis that the confirmation or denial was prohibited by section 237 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (EA02).
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Kent County Council
2 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information about the UK’s funding of certain projects in Bahrain. The FCO confirmed that it held some information falling within the scope of the request but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The FCO also sought to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any further information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 23(5) (security bodies) and 24(2) (national security) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO is entitled to rely on sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) to withhold the information. She has also concluded that the FCO is entitled to rely on sections 23(5) and 24(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any further information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27
2 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the data analysis reports produced for the Pay Consistency Panel (PCP) and the pay progression assessments that were revised. The ICO disclosed some information but refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 22 and 40 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner investigation, the ICO withdrew its application of section 22 and disclosed the withheld information to the complainant. It however still remained of the opinion that section 40 applied to a small amount of information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has appropriately withheld the remaining withheld information under section 40 of the FOIA. She does not therefore require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Information Commissioner
1 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested policies relating to the recognition of tenants’ associations. The London Borough of Camden refused the request because it estimated that the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough has made a reasonable estimate and was therefore entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Camden Council
1 Apr 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information about parking enforcement. Manchester City Council provided the requested information, but not within 20 working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond within 20 working days and thus breached section 10 of the FOIA. She also finds that the Council failed to give effect to the complainant’s preference for the means by which he wished to have the information communicated. The Council therefore also breached section 11 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 11
View Manchester City Council
1 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) for information as to whether the BBC nominated the television presenter and documentary filmmaker Ms Stacey Dooley for an honorary MBE in 2018. DCMS refused to confirm or deny whether they held the requested information under section 37(2)(the conferring by The Crown of any honour or dignity) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that DCMS was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information under section 37(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 37(2)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
1 Apr 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the identities of members of an accreditation committee. The Cabinet Office initially withheld all of the information but later disclosed most of it. It relied on section 40(2) to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days and therefore breached section 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also made some comments on the Cabinet Office’s engagement with her office under “Other Matters.” The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Cabinet Office
1 Apr 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested certain information held relating to comments made by Hastings Borough Council (the council) in correspondence which it sent to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The council stated that it did not hold recorded information relevant to the first part of the complainant’s request. With regard to the second part of the request, the council confirmed that ‘related’ information was contained within a particular report which it had already provided to the complainant in a redacted format in response to a previous request. The council went on to advise that it maintained its position that the withheld information contained within the report was exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. It is the Commissioner’s decision that the council does not, on the balance of probabilities, hold any recorded information that is relevant to the terms of the complainant’s request. However, the Commissioner has found that the council ha
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
1 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Doncaster Council (the Council) information relating to council tax overpayments and refunds. The Council refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) 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 Doncaster Council
1 Apr 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 a book proposal. The Press addressed one part of the request, withheld information within the scope of another part under section 41 of the FOIA (information provided in confidence) and confirmed that it does not hold information relevant to two other parts of the request. The complainant is dissatisfied with the Press’ reliance on section 41 to withhold information he has requested. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information the Press is withholding is exem
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
1 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Staffordshire Police relating to a circular he believed had been sent in 2008. Staffordshire Police denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Staffordshire Police does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Staffordshire Police
1 Apr 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an immigration enforcement raid. The Home Office provided some information in its response and some further information following an internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that whilst the Home Office has now discharged both its section 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b) duties, it failed to do so within 20 working days. It therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
1 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about email response policies. The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police considered that the request was vexatious and relied on section 17(6) of the FOIA to refuse the request without issuing a fresh refusal notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and that, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for GMP not to issue a fresh refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/528/2021 permission to appeal refused. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0153 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17(6)
View Greater Manchester Police
1 Apr 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a claim concerning alleged historic abuse at the St William’s Approved School near Market Weighton. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 31(1)(c) (law enforcement) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 31(1)(c) 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Ministry of Justice
31 Mar 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for information relating to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) prosecutions for failure to notify the DVLA that a vehicle is off the road (often known as a Statutory Off Road Notification or SORN). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As the request has now been responded to, the Commissioner does not require the DVLA to take any further steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
31 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) treatment. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) and is satisfied that DHSC met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department of Health and Social Care
31 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (‘the PPO’) information about the management of staff with illnesses, injuries and grievances, and information about staff turnover. The PPO said that it did not hold the information described in the request, explaining that, for the purposes of the FOIA, human resources information about its staff is held by the Ministry of Justice (‘the MOJ’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the PPO does not hold the information described in the request. However, by failing to notify the complainant that it did not hold the requested information by the completion of the internal review or the statutory time for compliance, the PPO breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 1
View Prisons and Probation Ombudsman