5 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information on dog related harassment incidents in the past three years. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Wales Police has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) and section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View North Wales Police
5 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to inspection, maintenance and repairs of a specified highway area over a specified timeframe. Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (the ‘Council’) disclosed some of the requested information, but withheld the remainder under the Regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice etc) exception of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to the withheld information and that the public interest in all the circumstances of the case favours maintaining the exception as set out in Regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0133 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Trafford 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 partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Buckinghamshire County Council (“the Council”), information in relation to a report taken during a meeting after a reported safeguarding concern. The Council provided the complainant with her own personal information, extracted from the report, but advised that it was withholding the rest of the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA – personal information, and section 41(1) – information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA and section 41(1) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. However, in issuing its initial response, the Council breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the FOIA respectively, since it issued the response outside the statutory time for compliance and did not correctly cite the exemptions which it was relying on to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps in relation to this compl
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View Buckinghamshire Council
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
4 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a developer’s agreement relating to the Saxonvale site in Frome. Mendip District Council refused the request, withholding the information under the exemption for commercial interests – section 43(2) of the FOIA. At the Commissioner’s direction the council reconsidered the request under the EIR and disclosed a redacted version of the information, withholding information under the exception for commercial confidentiality – regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that Mendip District Council initially wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and 14(1) of the EIR and that it correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0132 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
4 Mar 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority about policies and procedures. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2020/0139 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
4 Mar 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two related requests about stray dogs from Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”). The Council initially refused to provide the information citing sections 38(1) (health and safety) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA.
During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed the requested information in full. However, the complainant advised that he still required a decision notice to record the delay in provision of the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that in responding late to the requests and in failing to disclose the requested information within the statutory 20 working day limit the Council breached section 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sefton Council
4 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the business rates payable, and actually paid, by the liable parties on a particular property. The council initially applied section 40(2) to withhold the information. In its internal review it changed its decision. It provided details of the payable rates to the complainants, and withheld the actual rates paid by the parties under section 43(2) (commercial interests). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council also applied section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 41(1) to withhold the information from disclosure. She has not therefore found it necessary to consider the application of section 43(2). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Cornwall Council
4 Mar 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about two alleged breaches of the ministerial code by the Rt Hon Priti Patel MP. The Cabinet Office had failed to issue a substantive response at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable timeframe. She therefore finds that the Cabinet Office has breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Cabinet Office
4 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of the service record of his late father. The MOD responded by explaining that it could not locate any such record. The complainant believes that the MOD is likely to hold his father’s service record. However, the Commissioner has concluded that on the balance of probabilities the MOD does not hold the information sought by the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0105 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Defence
3 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of the salaries of staff in a particular office. The Equality and Human Rights Commission refused both requests because it considered the information to be personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information in question is personal data and its disclosure would be unlawful. EHRC was therefore correct to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. However, in the case of the second request, it failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days and thus breached section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2020/0137 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
3 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from North Tyneside Council (“the Council”) relating to a tree. The Council stated that it did not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have considered the request under the EIR. However, she is satisfied that the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View North Tyneside Council
3 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Cornwall Council (the Council) information in relation to Council property tenants who have been investigated for unauthorised short-term/holiday lets. The Council provided parts of the information requested and withheld the remainder because it considered that disclosing it would breach data protection principles.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA to withhold part of the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require any step to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Cornwall Council
3 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of an independent review report commissioned by the Permanent Secretary into a specified IT systems failure. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 43(2) of FOIA, the exemption for commercial interests. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ also cited section 40(2), the exemption for personal information, for two individuals named within the withheld report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption provided by section 43(2) is not engaged for the reasons set out in this notice. She also finds that section 40(2) is not engaged in relation to one individual named in the report, but has concluded that the MOJ was correct to cite section 40(2) in relation to the other named individual. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to take the following steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice to ensure compliance with the legislation:
Disclose the
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
View Ministry of Justice
3 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested, from the Ministry of Justice, the identity of a large mortgage provider and the number of possession claims it pursued as referenced in a statistical report. The Ministry of Justice withheld the information in its entirety under Section 32(1)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ministry of Justice has correctly applied Section 32(1)(c) to the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
3 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a test paper used for grammar school applications in the London Borough of Bexley (“LB Bexley”) in 2018. LB Bexley refused to provide it citing section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that LB Bexley is entitled to rely on section 43 as its basis for doing so. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0106 Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Bexley Council
3 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to work orders, reports and associated documents in respect of a particular property. The London Borough of Lambeth (“LBL”) provided him with some information but argued that it held no further information. It failed to conduct an internal review. There was further correspondence between the parties and further information was supplied but, following this, LBL argued that it held no more information within the scope of the complainant’s request. The complainant focussed on requiring hard copies of the information held. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBL holds no further information within the scope of the complainant’s request in the format specified – namely hard copies documents of a specific description. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Lambeth
3 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the number and distribution of Ministerial Misconduct complaints. The Cabinet Office disclosed information in relation to questions one and three, withheld the information falling within the scope of question two under section 40(2) and confirmed that the information requested in question four was already in the public domain and relied on section 21 to refuse to provide this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the information within the scope of question two, the Cabinet Office does not hold any further information within the scope of question three and is not entitled to rely on section 21 in relation to question four. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld and section 21. 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 Commi
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
3 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the creation of the post of Community Mayor by the council, and further information on how this post was filled. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to state that no information is held for the purposes of section 1(1). She has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 17(7)(b) in that the council did not provide the complainant details of his right to make a complaint to the Commissioner under section 50 of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 17
3 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Milton Keynes Council (the Council) various information relating to a planning application. The Council disclosed some information it held 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0138 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Milton Keynes Council
2 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the book “Inside Intelligence” by Anthony Cavendish contained in a specific file he identified in The National Archives catalogue. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has appropriately relied on the exemption at section 23(1) – Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters, to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
2 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to performance related pay. Highways England refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Highways England has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View National Highways
2 Mar 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the information shared between HMRC and the Cabinet Office with regards to the awarding of Honours. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to withhold information under sections 36 and 37. However, the Commissioner has determined that the Cabinet Office is not entitled to rely on section 21 with regards to the number of high risk ratings. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the number of high risk ratings received by year. 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0151 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 36; FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
2 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested papers prepared for a byelaw working group meeting on 23 April 2019. Cornwall Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (‘CIFCA’ / ‘Cornwall IFCA’) withheld the information it holds under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR (internal communications) and considered that the public interest favoured maintaining this exception. The complainant disputes that this information could be withheld. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information engages the exception under regulation 12(4)(e) and, at the time of the request, the public interest favoured maintaining this exception. The Commissioner does not require CIFCA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
2 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested and equality impact assessment from the Home Office (the “HO”). The HO refused to disclose the information held, citing sections 31(1) (law enforcement) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the HO was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(e) to withhold the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
2 Mar 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request about D-Hive and the cancellation of Derby Sound. The University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) refused the request under the section 43(2) (commercial interests) exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has not successfully applied Section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information. 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0135 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
2 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested closed file PREM19/3824. The Cabinet Office withheld this information on the basis of section 23(1) (security bodies) and section 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner is satisfied that the entirety of the file is exempt from disclosure under section 23(1) of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps regarding this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
2 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on Senior Civil Servants disciplined for wrongdoing. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA as it would exceed the cost limit to comply. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC was entitled to refuse the request under section 12 of the FOIA and that it complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance in accordance with section 16(1). The Commissioner does not require the DHSC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department of Health and Social Care
2 Mar 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Homes England about the Empty Homes Grant Programme, administered by the former Homes and Community Agency. Homes England disclosed most of the information falling within the scope of the request but withheld a small amount relating to assessment parameters under section 43(2) of the FOIA – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that Homes England has correctly engaged section 43(2) and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Homes England
2 Mar 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). London Borough of Bromley (the Council) originally withheld this information under section 36 but disclosed the information during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has therefore breached section 10 of the Act as it failed to provide the information within the statutory timeframe. As the information has been disclosed, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bromley Council
28 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the volume of cases submitted to NHS Resolution’s Practitioner Performance Advice Service in connection to the Royal Berkshire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. NHS Resolution (NHSR) says it does not hold information falling within the scope of two parts of the request. It has released some relevant information and is withholding information that falls within one part of the request under section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). It considers the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. NHSR considers that this information also engages the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third person personal data). The complainant disputes that the information is exempt from disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information requested in part 1 of the complainant’s request is exempt from disclosure under section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA and t
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 40
View NHS Resolution
28 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence from Fyfield and West Overton Parish Council (“the Council”) about a specific planning application. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA and also referred to the cost of compliance. After considering whether the request may fall to be considered under the EIR, the Council refused it under regulation 12(4)(b) – a manifestly unreasonable request, on the basis that compliance would place a disproportionate burden on the Council. The Council also suggested that the requested information may be exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been considered under the EIR. However, the Council has failed to demonstrate, to her satisfaction, that the request is manifestly unreasonable. She therefore finds that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. The Commissioner has also concluded that the
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(4)(e)
28 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about salary and bonus payments to staff at Senior Level 1 and above. Highways England refused to disclose some of the requested information citing section 22 which was intended for future publication and the remaining information was withheld under section 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Highways England was correct to refuse to disclose Senior 3 pay/reward information for 2018/2019 under section 22 FOIA. It incorrectly applied section 43(2) FOIA to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under section 43(2) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 43
View National Highways
28 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the cancellation of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). Swansea Council (‘the Council’) stated that the information was exempt under section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed some information but maintained that the remaining information was exempt. The Council also confirmed that it was relying on section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining withheld information is is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(c) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached section 10(1) in failing to disclose some of the information requested within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0131 consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31
View Swansea Council
27 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the FOS in the form of recorded estimates as to how much time was spent on his complaint to it and information regarding the qualifications of the specific ombudsman who dealt with the complaint. The FOS stated that it did not hold recorded information in relation to time estimates, however it did provide the complainant with a link to its annual report and accounts and later with information as to what actions were undertaken regarding his specific complaint. In relation to the qualifications of the ombudsman, the FOS refused to confirm or deny whether it held such information, citing section 40(5) of the FOIA as a basis for this. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOS is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the relevant requested information. The Commissioner also finds that the FOS breached sections 1(1) and 1(1)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
27 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to UCAS grade predictions. The Commissioner’s decision is that Langley Grammar School (the School) has incorrectly cited section 14(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response without reliance on section 14(2). 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 14
View LANGLEY GRAMMAR SCHOOL
27 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Hastings Borough Council (the council) which relates to an invoice that it had received for work undertaken by a third party company in connection to a site licence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR as its basis for withholding the information relevant to the request, and that the public interest rests in favour of maintaining this exception. However, 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. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
27 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a follow up request to an earlier request about an immigration raid. The Home Office had failed to issue a substantive response to the request at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office 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
View Home Office
27 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a political visit to Yorkshire. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to complete its deliberations under section 17(3) of the FOIA and respond to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Home Office
27 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a political visit to Yorkshire. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to complete its deliberations under section 17(3) of the FOIA and respond to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Home Office
27 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested emails containing a particular subject line. The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham had failed to respond to the request at the date of this notice. 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. The Commissioner requires the London Borough 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
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
26 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various pieces of information about a piece of land referenced within four specific planning applications. Swansea Council (‘the Council’) stated that all planning information was available on its planning portal and no additional information was held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council located additional information relevant to the request, which it disclosed. The Commissioner has determined that some of the information requested constitutes the complainant’s own personal data and is therefore exempt under regulation 5(3) of the EIR. The Commissioner has also determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the request. However, she finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR in failing to provide the requested information within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be take.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 5(3)
View Swansea Council
26 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Ministry of Defence (MOD) for a copy of the second edition of the ‘JSP900: UK Targeting Policy’. The MOD withheld the document on the basis of sections 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(b) (defence), 27(1)(a) (international relations) of FOIA in its entirety. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it provided the complainant with a redacted version of the document. It explained that the remaining withheld information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemptions previously cited, but also on the basis sections 23(1) (security bodies) and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that the remaining withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 26(1)(b), 23(1) and 40(2) of FOIA. However, she has concluded that the MOD breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) of FOIA in the manner in which it handed this request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0125 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 26; FOI 40
View Ministry of Defence
26 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a list of the companies and organisations that have been issued with parliamentary passes. The House of Commons refused the request on the basis that compliance would exceed the cost limit at section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the House of Commons was entitled to refuse the request in reliance on section 12 of the FOIA. No further steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
26 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a Local Plan. Elmbridge Borough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for information in the course of completion – regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Elmbridge Borough Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0118 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Elmbridge Borough Council
26 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Ammanford Town Council (“the Council”) relating to items of correspondence referred to in minutes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
26 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the British Steel Pension Scheme. The Money and Pensions Service denied holding information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was clear and that MAPS was not required to obtain any further clarification of it. On the balance of probabilities, MAPS holds no information within the scope of the request the complainant made. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Money and Pensions Service
26 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Warwickshire Police about traffic speeding enforcement. Warwickshire Police has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires Warwickshire Police to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. Warwickshire Police must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
26 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a commercial tender. The Cabinet Office had failed to respond to the request at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office 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
View Cabinet Office