11 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about objections received about a particular planning application. Torfaen County Borough Council (‘the Council’) provided some information but withheld details of the objector under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that the Council has correctly applied regulation 13 to the withheld information. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Torfaen County Borough Council
11 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of information about energy charges provided to new residents of specific properties. The London Borough of Waltham Forest provided all the information it held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough complied with its duty under section 1(1) of the FOIA within 20 working days. It also complied with its section 11 duty to communicate the information it held in the format the complainant had requested. The Commissioner therefore finds that the London Borough did not breach either aspect of the FOIA in responding to the request. However she has made some more general comments in the “Other Matters” section of this notice. As no breach of the Act has occurred, the Commissioner does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 11
View Waltham Forest Council
10 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information involving specified forms and the associated numbers utilised for unpaid penalty charges. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to provide some of the requested information under section 12(1) of FOIA, as to do so would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit. It responded to the remainder of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ is not obliged to comply with part one of the request under section 12(1) of FOIA. She finds that the MOJ complied with its section 16 of FOIA obligations by providing advice and assistance to the complainant. She also finds that as section 12(1) was engaged in relation to part of the request, the MOJ was not obliged to respond to the remainder (although it did so). No steps are required to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0096 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
10 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list, complete with the address and/or postcode, of all the land and property owned by the Governing Body of Jesus College (Jesus College). Jesus College released some of the requested information but withheld the remainder under section 21(1) of the FOIA, as it considered this information to already be accessible to the complainant by other means. The Commissioner’s decision is that Jesus College can rely on section 21(1) of the FOIA to withhold some of the information the complainant has requested, as it is accessible to him by other means. However, Jesus College breached section 1(1), section 10(1) and section 17(1) as it did not confirm whether it held the requested information, provide the requested information, or provide a refusal notice to the complainant within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 21
10 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to a contract for a virtual learning environment. This included the contract, tender responses, evaluation matrices and documents provided as part of the sales process. The University of Surrey refused the request on the basis of section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that for the majority of the information, including tender documents, the University has correctly refused the request under section 43(2) and the public interest favours withholding the information. For a small number of documents relating to the tendering exercise and the evaluation of the tenders the Commissioner finds the exemption has not been shown to be engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the documents listed in the confidential annex with the tab on price evaluation redacted from the evaluation spreadsheets.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View The University of Surrey
7 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the appointment of governors at the school and specific information concerning the departure of one and the appointment of another. To the date of this notice, International Academy of Greenwich (the school) has failed to respond to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the school has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s information request within the statutory timeframe for compliance. The Commissioner requires the school to respond to the complainant’s information request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Education
7 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from North Yorkshire County Council information in relation to savings achieved as stated in “Total Transport: feasibility report & pilot review”. The Council provided some information which was considered to be held within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council, on the balance of probabilities, held no further recorded information within the scope of the remaining part of the request.
However, the Commissioner does find that the Council breached section 10 by not disclosing the requested information within the statutory timeframe.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View North Yorkshire County Council
7 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the names of the suppliers on the Government Hubs Fit-Out Framework linked to their evaluation scores. The public authority withheld this information relying on the exemption at section 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 43(2) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
7 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a three part request for information relating to the Strategic Monitoring Review (SMR) carried out by the Environment Agency (EA). The EA refused parts one and two of the request under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA has failed to demonstrate that complying with parts one and two of the request would be manifestly unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case. She therefore finds that the EA was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse those parts of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the EA failed to provide a refusal notice within 20 working days and failed to carry out an internal review within 40 working days and as a result it breached regulations 14(2) and 11(4) of the EIR respectively. The Commissioner requires the EA to issue a fresh response to parts one and two of the request which does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Environment Agency
7 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about assistance dogs from Bilborough Sixth Form College (the “college”). The college refused to provide this information citing section 12(1) and section 14(1) of the FOIA. Whilst it subsequently withdrew its reliance on section 14(1), the college continued to cite section 12(1) for the first part of the request. Later, the college confirmed that it did not hold any information regarding the second part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the college has correctly cited section 12(1) and that, on the balance of probability, it does not hold the information requested in the second part of the request. However, she considers that the college has not complied with its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA to provide the complainant with reasonable advice and assistance. The Commissioner notes that the response was provided outside the statutory 20 working day time limit and therefore the college has breached section 10(1) of th
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16
6 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to know whether Northamptonshire Police forced entry to a property that he owns. Northamptonshire Police said that it could not respond to the request because of the Data Protection Act 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that, under section 40(5B)(a)(i) (personal information) of the FOIA, Northamptonshire Police was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. However, she found that because Northamptonshire Police failed to specify the exemption on which it was relying, it breached section 17(1)(b) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Northamptonshire Police
6 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (the London Borough) concerning gifts & hospitality offered by employees of an architectural firm to employees of the London Borough. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Southwark Council
6 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the cost of local evening programming on BBC local radio in England and the cost of Virtual Local Radio (ViLoR), a new technology for local radio. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation relating to information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and hence was excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so was not covered by the FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0083 disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
6 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the
Number of enforcement cases dealt with each month by the DVLA. The DVLA refused to disclose the requested information under section 1(1)(d) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA has incorrectly applied section 31(1)(d) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the DVLA to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
6 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested University College London (UCL) to disclose information relating to its monitoring of the ethnicity balance of recruitment panels. Initially UCL stated that the requested information is not held. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation UCL claimed a late reliance on section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCL is entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA in this case. She has however recorded a breach of section 10 and 16 of the FOIA, as UCL failed to respond to the request in the statutory timeframe for compliance and failed to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. UCL has now provided advice and assistance to the complainant, so the Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View University College London
5 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning a list of Articles in Directive 95/46/EC (the repealed Data Protection Directive) which the European Commission have alleged were not implemented properly by the UK Government via the provisions in the (repealed) Data Protection Act 1998 and identification of the sections in the 1998 Act to which each allegation relates. Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport withheld the information requested, initially under Section 27(1)(a)(prejudice to relations between the United Kingdom and any other State) and following internal review, under Sections 27(1)(b)(relations between the United Kingdom and any international organisation or international court), 27(2)(confidential information obtained from a State other than the United Kingdom or from an international organisation or international court) and 42(1)(legal professional privilege). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0165 under appeal.
The Commissioner has concluded that
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
5 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Ferryhill Town Council (“the Council”) relating to a complaint submitted to the Council by a third party. The Council withheld the information under section 41(1) of the FOIA – information provided in confidence. The Commissioner reviewed the withheld information and pro-actively considered whether it is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. Having done so, her decision is that all of the information is exempt under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
5 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Ethiopian asylum applicants from the Home Office (“HO”). The HO refused to confirm or deny whether it holds any information citing sections 40(5B) (personal information) and 38(2) (health and safety) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not find either exemption to be engaged. She also finds a breach of section 17(3) (refusal of request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the HO to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and either disclose any information identified or issue a refusal notice which is compliant with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 38; FOI 40
View Home Office
5 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information, including numbers of witness statements for unpaid penalty charges and recovery orders, for a specified type of unpaid penalty. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to provide the requested information under section 12(1) of FOIA, as to do so would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of FOIA. She finds that the MOJ complied with its section 16 of FOIA obligations by providing advice and assistance to the complainant. No steps are required to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0094 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
5 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on communications in 2003 between Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown referring to a referendum on whether the UK should join the Euro. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has appropriately applied the exemptions at section 35(1)(a) and (b) – Formulation of government policy and Ministerial communications, however, the public interest favours disclosure of the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0104 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 35(1)(a)
View Cabinet Office
5 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested CCTV footage of a specific address. The London Borough of Hounslow Council responded that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is unlikely to be held. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View London Borough of Hounslow
4 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Weston Area Health NHS Trust (the trust) to disclose information relating to doctors subjected to disciplinary action in the last 5 years. The trust disclosed the requested information to the complainant but refused to disclose the exact allegations for each case under section 40 of the FOIA. The complainant did not dispute the application of section 40 of the FOIA but disagreed with the information disclosed and felt further recorded information is held or should be provided. The Commissioner is satisfied that the trust has now provided all the recorded information it holds falling within the scope of the complainant’s requests. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. The Commissioner has however found the trust in breach of sections 1(1)(a) and (b) and section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 1(1)(b); FOI 10
View Weston Area Health NHS Trust
4 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a four-part request relating to the Court Security Officers (Designation) Regulations 2005. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) initially cited section 21 for parts one to three (information accessible to applicant by other means) but revised its position at internal review, and provided the requested information. For part four, the MOJ cited section 31(1)(c) (law enforcement) of FOIA and advised that the public interest test favoured withholding the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was not entitled to rely on section 31(1)(c) for the majority of the withheld information, which is a template letter. Her full position is set out in a confidential annex which will be provided to the MOJ only. However, she finds that one sentence within the template letter did engage the exemption and that the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining section 31(1)(c). The Commissioner requires the MOJ to disclose the withheld information with the exc
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Ministry of Justice
3 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Devon and Cornwall Police (“D&CP”) information about the death of a man with mental health issues, who had been restrained with an emergency response belt while in police custody. D&CP referred the complainant to some information in the public domain, said that some of the information described in the request was not held and said that the remainder was exempt from disclosure under section 30(1) (investigations and proceedings), section 38(1) (health and safety) and section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The complainant challenged the application of the exemptions to withhold information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, D&CP withdrew reliance on section 30(1) and applied section 31(1) (law enforcement) of the FOIA instead. The Commissioner’s decision is that D&CP was entitled to rely on sections 31, 38 and 40 to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner requires no steps. Information Tribunal UA-2021-001188-GIA (previou
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 38; FOI 40
View Devon and Cornwall Police
3 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Invest Northern Ireland (INI) to disclose information relating to application submitted by N3uroPro Limited for participation in the Propel initiative, information relating to the decision to award a place on the scheme to one of the directors of this company under the company named G Science Ltd and all correspondence relating to this matter between certain named individuals. INI confirmed that some of the requested information is not held. In relation to the recorded information that is held, it disclosed some of this to the complainant and informed the complainant that the remainder is exempt from disclosure under sections 40(2) and 43 of the FOIA. The complainant required the Commissioner to consider the application of section 43 of the FOIA to the withheld information and to determine whether further recorded information is held by Ignite on INI’s behalf and between two named individuals. The Commissioner’s decision is that INI is entitled to rely on
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 43
View Invest Northern Ireland
3 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a summary of a report from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to provide this, citing the exemptions at section 30(1) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it disclosed a small amount of information but continued to rely on the exemptions cited for the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 30(1) of the FOIA to withhold the remaining information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Metropolitan Police Service
3 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the proposed development of the Western Hub and associated infrastructure at Heathrow Airport. Heathrow Airport Ltd (HAL) (the owner/operator of Heathrow Airport) explained that it is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. It therefore refused to respond to this request under the EIR. The Commissioner considers that HAL is a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner therefore requires HAL to respond to this information request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0101 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)(c)
View Heathrow Airport
3 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the monitoring and enforcement of Environmental Weight Restrictions for vehicles. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire County Council has correctly engaged the exemptions at 40(2) – personal information and section 30(1)(b) - investigations and proceedings to withhold some information. However it failed to provide a response to part of the information request and therefore breached section 10 – time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a response to request item [i] in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (2000).
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 30; FOI 40(2)
View Nottinghamshire County Council
2 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on pensions changes from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) as it considered the request is vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request.The Commissioner does however find that DWP has breached section 10 with respect to a further request made on 7 May 2019. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a substantive response to the request dated 7 May 2019. 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 10; FOI 14
View Department for Work and Pensions
31 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a Housing Infrastructure Fund Bid. Milton Keynes Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Milton Keynes Council has disclosed all the information it holds in relation to parts 1 and 2 of the request and complied with section 1(1) but that, in relation to part 3 of the request, it has failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information in part 3 of the request which it withheld under section 43(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 43(2)
View Milton Keynes Council
31 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the disposal and acquisition of land in Darlington. The Commissioner’s decision is that Darlington Borough Council is not entitled to rely in regulation 12(5)e of the EIR, with the exception of a small amount of information. She also finds that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 6(1)b for the Title Deed numbers requested. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the withheld information with the exception of the information highlighted in the Confidential Appendix.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Darlington Borough Council
31 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to how the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) have interpreted and implemented the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) regulations. The FCA provided some information captured by the request but withheld other information. The majority of the withheld information was withheld under section 44 – statutory prohibition on disclosure, but some information was also withheld under section 40(2) – personal information and section 31 – law enforcement. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the FCA also applied section 42 – legal professional privilege to a small amount of the information that it had originally withheld under section 31. It also withdrew its application of exemptions from a very limited amount of information. The Commissioner also came to the conclusion that the FCA had interpreted one part of the request, part 8, too narrowly. The FCA therefore provided the Commissioner
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 31; FOI 40(2); FOI 42; FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
31 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested business cases relating to 20 different projects. Network Rail refused to comply with the request on the basis it would be manifestly unreasonable to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Network Rail has correctly refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) and has provided appropriate advice and assistance under regulation 9 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Network Rail
31 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office seeking information about any past and current plans to reclaim Hong Kong as British territory. The FCO explained to the complainant that complying with this request would exceed the cost limit and invited him to submit a refined request. The complainant did so, albeit that he still wished the FCO to provide him with a formal response to his initial request. With regard to the refined request the FCO concluded that it did not hold any information falling within its scope, a conclusion the complainant disputed. In relation to the initial request, the Commissioner has concluded that FCO was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope on the basis of section 12(2) of FOIA because to do so would exceed the appropriate cost limit. However, by failing to provide the complainant with a formal refusal notice stating this it breached section 17(1) of FOIA. In relation to
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 17
31 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the City of York Council (“the Council”) regarding the professional qualifications of its Flood Risk Management and Conservation Officers. The Council withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken in respect of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View York City Council
31 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies correspondence with the Department for Work and Pensions about a specific subject over a defined period. Her Majesty’s Treasury initially denied holding some of the information and refused the remainder of the request, citing section 12 of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) as its reason for doing so. It subsequently revised its position and applied section 12 to the entirety of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Treasury has reasonably estimated that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Treasury was therefore entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request. However, it failed to inform the complainant, within 20 working days, that it was relying on section 12 to refuse both parts of his request and the Commissioner therefore finds that the Treasury breached section 17(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps. Information Trib
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 17
View HM Treasury
31 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested particular meeting minutes and papers from the Canal & River Trust (‘CRT’). CRT’s position is that it does not hold the requested information for the purposes of the FOIA. The complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information requested in this case does not fall within the definition of information to which CRT has obligations under the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require CRT to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Canal and River Trust
31 Jan 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 rendition to Libya, and treatment in Libya, of two individuals. The FCO refused to comply with the request on the basis of sections 14(1) (vexatious) and 14(2) (repeated) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the request is vexatious and therefore the FCO is entitled to refuse to comply with it by virtue of section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
31 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a variety of information from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the London Borough), which related to a 2017 request that the London Borough previously responded to. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in respect of questions 2, 3 and 6 of the complainant’s request, the London Borough failed to respond within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Waltham Forest Council
30 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Oxford City Council for copies of communications and records of contacts between GL Hearn and the Council which relate to the commissioning, production and approval of the content of the Oxford Local Plan. The Commissioner has established that the Council does not hold any information within the scope of the complainant’s request other than an annotated ‘Clarification Note’ which is the subject of the Council’s application of section 42(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Oxford City Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA and also that it has properly applied the exemption to disclosure provided by section 42(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 42
View Oxford City Council
30 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence between the legal officer and the planning department at Fylde Council (“the Council”) which related to planning applications at a specific address. The Council withheld the information, stating that it was covered by Legal Professional Privilege (LPP). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the information under the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – adversely affect the course of justice – and that the balance of the public interest favours the exception being maintained. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Fylde Borough Council
30 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to a rent at an industrial estate. Braintree District Council (the council) refused the request relying on section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered it to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) of the FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner has also found that the council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA, as it responded to the request outside the required 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Braintree District Council
30 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested follow on information from Monmouthshire County Council in respect of all data concerning a planning application to build houses in Raglan. Monmouthshire County Council confirmed that the complainant could view the information either via the internet, at one of its hubs or at its premises in County Hall. The Commissioner’s decision is that Monmouthshire County Council has complied with its obligations under regulation 6 of the EIR The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 6(1)
View Monmouthshire County Council
30 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Teignbridge District Council regarding complaints of fraud, intimidation and failure to investigate named staff properly. Teignbridge District Council did not comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (Vexatious requests) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Teignbridge District Council has applied section 14(1) appropriately. However, she considers that it has breached sections 10(1) (Time for compliance) and 17 (Refusal of a request) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require Teignbridge District Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0091 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 14(1); FOI 17
View Teignbridge District Council
30 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the FCO seeking communications between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in London and the British Embassy in Moscow about the consequences of the Salisbury poisonings. The FCO refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the FCO is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
30 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Council initially refused the request under regulation 12(5)(b), regulation 12(5)(f) and regulation 13 of the EIR, as well as stating that some information was not held. The Council subsequently sought to rely on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) on the basis that the request was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b), and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/475/2021 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
30 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Bury Council (“the Council”), information relating to the school’s appeals process. The Council withheld some information under section 40(2) of the FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0055 disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Bury Council
30 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the methodology used to calculate the estimated annual yield from a measure on protecting certain taxes in insolvency. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request relying on section 35(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(1)(a) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
29 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information generated by the Westminster Bridge Road Regeneration Project. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to demonstrate, to her satisfaction, that the request would impose an unreasonable burden. She therefore finds that the public authority is not entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the requests. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the requests, under the EIR, which do not rely on the exception at Regulation 12(4)(b)
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Lambeth
29 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police about an event involving an MP. Sussex Police has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. Sussex Police must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sussex Police