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
31 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the funding of Green Lodge. The NHS Redbridge Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) confirmed that it did not hold any information. The complainant considered that information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the CCG does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the CCG to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Redbridge Clinical Commissioning Group
31 Mar 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a post mortem of the body of a fox found at a hunt meeting. Leicestershire Police refused the request on the grounds that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under sections 30(1)(a),(b) and (c) (investigations and proceedings) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30(1)(a)(i) of the FOIA is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, by failing to respond to the request within the twenty working day statutory time for compliance, Leicestershire Police breached section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 30
View Leicestershire Police
31 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Langdale Free School to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). The Department for Education (DfE) 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 the DfE is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) and is satisfied that the DfE 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 for Education
31 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Highways England information about DCP (”damage to crown property”) rates and related matters. Highways England provided some information to the complainant but stated that it did not hold information about DCP rates. The public authority also cited section 14(2)(repeat requests) to part of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probability, Highways England does not hold information about DCP rates. However, the Commissioner finds that section 14(2) does not apply to this request and that Highways England breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 12
View National Highways
30 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about procedures that are applicable to the paying of any financial award or allowance to its Chief Executive, from Surrey Heath Borough Council (the “Council”). The Council provided some information, but refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (2)(b)(ii), and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, it revised its position, instead citing section 36(3) of the FOIA, the “neither confirm nor deny” provision of this exemption, by virtue of subsections 36(2)(b)(i) and (2)(b)(ii), and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(3), by virtue of section 36(2)(c) only, is properly engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Surrey Heath Borough Council
17 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a scoring system applied by Action Fraud to alleged crimes, from City of London Police (“COLP”). COLP advised that some of the information was not held, which was not challenged by the complainant. In respect of the information that was held, it advised that it was exempt from disclosure by virtue of the exemption at sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1) was properly cited and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0130 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)
View City of London Police
16 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence seeking the home addresses of four individuals who served with the RAF during World War Two. The MOD withheld this information on the basis of section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 41(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Ministry of Defence
16 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to a consultant. Old Somerby Parish Council (the council) provided some information and stated that the remaining information had already been provided to the complainant in response to a previous request. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council located further information and confirmed that was all that was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council holds no further information but breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in providing the information it did hold outside the required 20 working day response time. As the information has been provided, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
16 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to the insulating and re-waterproofing of roofing. Wiltshire Council (the council) refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR as it considered it to be manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the complainant under the EIR without relying on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Wiltshire Council
16 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested all lease agreements granted between the Canal and River Trust (the CRT) and the Pike Anglers’ Club (PAC) for the period from March 2013 to present day, including the lease costs for the fishing rights of a stretch of the Lancaster canal. Initially, the CRT refused the request under section 14(2) of the FOIA. It however later disclosed the recorded information it holds, with redactions made under sections 40 and 43 of the FOIA. No complaint was made in respect of the application of section 40 of the FOIA. But the complainant did raise concerns over whether the CRT had identified all recorded information held and the application of section 43. During the Commissioner’s investigation it was established that the request should have been considered under the EIR. The CRT confirmed that it now wished to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities no further recorded information is held to that alre
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(e)
View Canal and River Trust
16 Mar 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Gloucestershire County Council (the “Council”) regarding Penalty Charge Notice (“PCN”) numbers issued by the bus lane camera on the A40 Gloucester Road, Cheltenham. The Council withheld the information under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA in relation to the complainant’s information request. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information requested to the complainant, namely PCN numbers issued by the bus lane camera on the A40 Gloucester Road, Cheltenham, to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Gloucestershire County Council
13 Mar 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with a Commission on Human Medicines’ Expert Working Group report on Hormone Pregnancy Tests. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) released some information and withheld the remainder under sections 36(2)(b) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2) (personal data). Its position is that the public interest favours maintaining the section 36 exemptions. The complainant disputes MHRA’s reliance on section 36 to withhold some of the information she has requested. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The disputed information engages the exemptions under section 36(2)(b) but not that under section 36(2)(c). The public interest favours disclosing the withheld information. The Commissioner requires MHRA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Release the information being withheld under section 36(2)(b), having first redacted a
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
13 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the painting of road markings at a specific location. Lancashire County Council disclosed some information and confirmed that no further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire County Council wrongly handled the request under the EIR and breached regulation 5(1) but that it disclosed all the relevant information it holds and complied with the duty to carry out an internal review under regulation 11. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(1)
View Lancashire County Council
13 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Hastings Borough Council (the council) relating to comments which have been included within particular correspondence sent to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any information in addition to that which is already in the public domain that would fall within the specific terms of the complainant’s request. However, as the council failed to respond to the complainant’s request for an internal review within the required 40 working days, it is the Commissioner’s decision that the council has breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
13 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) relating to the UK’s exit from the EU. DHSC refused to disclose the requested information under section 35(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) FOIA was applied incorrectly to some of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the NDAs with the names of companies/names of company personnel redacted.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
13 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to tendering bids made for a procurement exercise carried out by the council. The council disclosed some information, however, it withheld other information on the basis that the exemptions at section 43(1) (trade secrets), section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 40(2) (personal data of third parties) applied. It later changed its position to rely upon sections 43(2) (commercial interests), and 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply section 43(2) to withhold the information. She has however decided that the council was correct to apply section 40(2) to withhold personal data from disclosure. She has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose a complete copy of table which was previously partially withheld u
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View Manchester City Council
13 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to specific planning applications. Mid Sussex District Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exceptions for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)) and the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)). During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority dropped its reliance on exceptions and disclosed the previously withheld information to the complainant. The complainant asked the Commissioner to determine whether all the relevant information had been disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that Mid Sussex District Council has disclosed all the relevant information it holds and complied with regulation 5(1) but that in doing so outside the time limit it breached regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Mid Sussex District Council
13 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a safety report relating to Redcliffe Bay Petroleum Storage Depot. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) disclosed some information but withheld other information under the exceptions provided by regulation 13 – personal information, and regulation 12(5)(a) – adverse affect to national security and public safety. The complainant has not challenged the application of regulation 13, which has simply been applied to the names of the individuals who authored the report, or are employees of the company operating the site. The Commissioner finds that the HSE breached regulation 5(2) by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The HSE also breached regulation 11(4) by failing to conclude its internal review within the time allowed. However in respect of the main issue the Commissioner finds that the HSE is entitled to rely on the exception provided by regulation12(5)(a) to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner doe
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Health and Safety Executive
12 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to know whether a high profile individual was refused entry to the UK, and if so, the reasons why. The Commissioner’s decision is that, under section 40(5B)(a)(i) (personal information) of the FOIA the Home Office as not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
11 Mar 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Transport (DfT) relating to complaint letters sent to Chris Grayling, former Secretary of State for Transport. DfT stated that it did not hold a central list of such cases and to conduct a manual search for the information requested would exceed the cost limit under the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that DfT did not read the request correctly and therefore it did not comply with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA as it has not issued a response based on the correct reading of the request. The Commissioner requires the DfT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. • Issue a fresh response in accordance with the FOIA. The DfT must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a)
View Department for Transport
11 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of a contract between The Royal Borough of Greenwich and a consortia comprising of Lovell Partnerships Limited, Morgan Sindall Group Plc and Asra Housing Association Limited in relation to the redevelopment of 3 housing estates collectively referred to as the Woolwich Estates. The public authority disclosed a significant amount of information from the contract and withheld the rest of the information relying on the exceptions at regulations 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information) and 13 (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(5)(e).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
11 Mar 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 Royal Borough of Greenwich 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 Royal Borough has not applied section 40(2) of the FOIA correctly to all of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the Royal Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the full addresses and postcodes of each block that it owns containing six or more units.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
10 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Independent Office for Police Conduct about complaints it had received. The Independent Office for Police Conduct answered some questions and applied sections 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) and 21(1)( Information accessible to applicant by other means) of the FOIA, to the remainder.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Independent Office for Police Conduct has applied sections 12(1) and 21(1) 12(1) appropriately. However, she considers that it has breached sections 16(1) (Duty to provide advice and assistance), 10(1) (Time for compliance with request) and 17(1) (Refusal of request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Independent Office for Police Conduct to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 17; FOI 21
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
10 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a Green Paper on a British Bill of Rights. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) disclosed some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to apply the exception at section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0140 disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
10 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a three part request for information relating to the Recall Petition 2018 to remove the MP for North Antrim. The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland (EONI) provided information falling within the scope of part three of the request but stated that it did not hold information falling within the scope of parts one and two of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, EONI does not hold the information requested in parts one and two of the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken as a result of the decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0149 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 3
10 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information, including legal advice, relating to a decision by the then Secretary of State for Justice not issuing, or being a party to, judicial review proceedings. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) withheld the requested information, citing section 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly applied the section 42(1) exemption to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Ministry of Justice
10 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a named individual. The Home Office confirmed it held information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it, on the basis that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit in costs set by section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office correctly applied section 12(1) and 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
View Home Office
10 Mar 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Bank of England (the Bank) information as to whom he should contact within the Bank to update his address as a former employee.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Bank failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. However, as the Bank 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0141 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bank of England
10 Mar 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on 19 items that presented opportunities for learning, which had been referred to in a meeting. NHS England (NHSE) relied on section 21 of the FOIA to withhold the information as it said it was already accessible to the complainant in a report that it had provided to them previously. The complainant disputed NHSE’s reliance on section 21 but considers that NHSE does hold the information they have requested elsewhere. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: NHSE incorrectly applied the exemption under section 21(1) of the FOIA to the requested information. This is because, on the balance of probabilities, NHSE does not hold the requested information – in the report or elsewhere. NHSE breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA as it indicated it holds the requested information when, on the balance of probabilities, it does not. The Commissioner does not require NHSE to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0148 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View NHS England
9 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information, plans and reports relating to the approach and throat section to the North-West of Euston Station. High Speed Two Limited (HS2) initially responded that there was no information for some parts of the request and applied Regulation 12(5)(d), material which is still in the course of completion, to the remaining parts of the request. During the course of the investigation, it applied Regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) to the remaining parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) does apply to the information and the public interest favoured maintaining this exception. The Commissioner also found a breach of regulation 14(2). The Commissioner does not require HS2 to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
9 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a report held by Hastings Borough Council (the council) which relates to advice about the repair and potential realignment of certain footpaths within Hastings Country Park. The council provided the complainant with a copy of the report in a redacted format. It advised that the information that had been withheld was exempt from disclosure 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) in respect of only part of the withheld information. Furthermore, the Commissioner is satisfied that the public interest favours maintaining regulation 12(5)(e) in respect of this information. With regards to the remaining information that has been withheld by the council, the Commissioner has concluded that regulation 12(5)(e) is not engaged. The Commissioner also finds that the council has breached regulation 5(2) as it failed to provide its response within 20 working days. In additi
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Hastings Borough Council
9 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the legal status of re-opening cases. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has correctly cited section 14(1) of the FOIA in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require PHSO to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0134 disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
9 Mar 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on income and expenditure regarding specified properties. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) is not entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse to comply with this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response that does not rely on section 12. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Waltham Forest Council
9 Mar 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Croydon (the Council) seeking information about a particular company. The complainant contacted the Commissioner about the Council’s failure to respond to this request. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to respond to the request. She now requires the Council to provide a response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Croydon
6 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Home Office information regarding the number of asylum seekers removed from the UK between 1 February 2018 and 28 February 2019, under instructions that were issued through ‘human error’. The Home Office refused the request under Section 12 of the FOIA on the basis that it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to comply with it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has correctly applied Section 12 to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the Home Office has correctly applied Section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
6 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Northaw and Cuffley Parish Council information in relation to correspondence sent from or to parish councillors during a specific period of time. The Council provided the information it considered to be held within the scope of the request. The complainant believed that further information should be held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold information further to what was disclosed.
The Commissioner requires no further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
6 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about how HM Revenue & Customs dealt with individuals involved with a particular tax avoidance scheme. HMRC refused to confirm or deny holding information as it claimed that to do so would breach the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (CRCA) and therefore it was entitled to rely on section 44(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to rely on section 44(2) of the FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding information. The Commissioner does not require any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0109 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
6 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information, including information regarding the planning, tendering, construction and payment for repair works due to be carried out on two footpaths. Bethersden Parish Council (the Council) initially refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it subsequently refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the Council was, therefore, entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. She also finds that the public interest lies in maintaining the Council’s application of the exception. However, as the Council failed to both specify the EIR exception under which it was refusing the request and explain its consideration of the public interest within the time for compliance, the Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner do
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14
6 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The applicant has requested information relating to registration numbers of pre-owned commercial vehicles and the company names. The Commissioner’s decision is that DVLA has correctly cited section 12 of the FOIA in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0108 Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
6 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about joint-funded care packages. Essex County Council provided some information and stated it had provided all the information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided all the information it held within the scope of the request. However, she also considers that the Council failed to identify all the information it did hold within 20 working days and it thus breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Essex County Council
6 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a report held by Hastings Borough Council (the council) which relates to a proposed investigation into the stability of a particular area of land that has been affected by landslips. 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) in respect of only part of the information that has been withheld. This is specifically in relation to the quotes which were attached to the main report that is under consideration, and also any breakdown of the estimated costs, or fees, contained within the report itself. Furthermore, the Commissioner is satisfied that the public interest favours maintaining regulation 12(5)(e) in respect of this information. With regards to all the remaining information held relevant to the request, the Commissioner has concluded that regulation 12(5)(e) is not engaged. The Commissioner also finds that the council has breac
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
6 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a Habitat Survey relating to a specific planning application. West Berkshire District Council withheld the information under the exception for the protection of the environment – regulation 12(5)(g). The Commissioner’s decision is that West Berkshire District Council has correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(g). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(g)
View West Oxfordshire District Council
6 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a number of files concerning the nuclear programme. The MOD explained that it only held a number of the requested files, the remainder still being held at The National Archives pending their return to the MOD as part of a security review. Of the files that it did hold the MOD relied on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to disclose them because of the burden of complying with the request. The Commissioner has concluded that the MOD is entitled to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1). However, she has also concluded that the MOD breached sections 10(1) and 17(5) of FOIA by failing to confirm what information it actually held within 20 working days of the request and by failing to provide a refusal notice citing section 14(1) within the same timescale.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14; FOI 17
View Ministry of Defence
6 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Gateshead Council (the Council) relating to allegations made about him. The Council advised that the information is his own personal data and is therefore exempt under the FOIA, citing section 40(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the exemption. The Commissioner therefore does not require any steps to be taken by the Council. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0145 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Gateshead Council
5 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted requests to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking two files concerning Guy Burgess. The FCO sought to withhold the requested files on the basis of section 23(1) (security bodies) or, in the alternative, section 24(1) (national security) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the files are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) or section 24(1) of FOIA. Information Tribunal FTT appeal UA-2023-000935-GIA dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
5 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a Call In Direction made to the Secretary of State for a planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHCLG correctly applied the exception for internal communications at Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
5 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a hackney cab driver against whom he intended to pursue legal action. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (‘SMBC’) refused to disclose the requested information on the grounds that it was exempt under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SMBC was entitled to cite section 40(2) to refuse the request. However, by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance, she found breaches of section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View Solihull Council
5 Mar 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested exclusion statistics for a defined period. The Governing Body of St Thomas the Apostle College had failed to issue a substantive response at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the College to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
5 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking a list of all persons who the FCO or Her Majesty’s Government has been involved with regarding rendition to Libya when Colonel Gaddafi was in power. The FCO refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of his request on the basis of 23(5) (security bodies), 24(2) (national security) and 27(4) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that sections 23(5) and 24(2) are engaged and that in relation to section 24(2) the public interest favoured maintaining that exemption. The FCO is therefore entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request.
This decision notice was appealed by the complainant and during the course of the appeal the public authority disclosed the confidential annex to the complainant. Following this disclosure, the Commissioner has published the confidential anne
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24