29 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the proposed Cambridge to Cambourne public transport route. The Council disclosed some information falling within the scope of the request, but refused to disclose all the information held citing regulations 13 – third party personal data; 12(4)d – material in the course of completion; and 12(5)f -interests of the person providing the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridgeshire County Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(4)d is engaged. She finds that regulation 13 is engaged as there is no legitimate interest served in disclosure of the personal data, and that regulation 12(5)f is engaged with the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighing the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information, as redacted by the Council in its submission to the Commis
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13
View Cambridgeshire County Council
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)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 partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested NHS England to disclose all the information it holds relating to the decision to exclude the eMBED Health Consortium and Optum from the Population Health Management IG Support Tool (PHMIGST) work programme. NHS England disclosed the requested information but redacted the personal data of several of its employees and external individuals in accordance with section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA for some of the withheld information. She has however concluded that section 40(2) is not engaged for the remainder. The Commissioner has also concluded that NHS England breached section 10 of the FOIA in this case. She therefore requires NHS England to disclose the withheld information which is not exempt by virtue of section 40(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View NHS England
29 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held that relates to any consultations that may have taken place between Hastings Borough Council (the council) and East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (ESFRS) about a particular site licence. The council issued a refusal notice confirming that it was withholding the information requested under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council disclosed some information to the complainant. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has now provided all the information that it holds that is relevant to the complainant’s request, and has therefore complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. However, it is the Commissioner decision that the council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it failed to provide the requested information within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this dec
Exemptions cited: FOI 5
View Hastings Borough Council
29 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence between specific email addresses from named councillors at Bracknell Forest Council (“the Council”) that refer to a wall being built. The Council provided some information but withheld one specific email under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – adversely affect the course of justice – since it considered that the email was covered by legal professional privilege. 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 balance of the public interest lies in the exception being maintained. Therefore, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Bracknell Forest Council
29 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Greater Manchester Combined Authority about a computer system. The Commissioner’s decision is that Greater Manchester Combined Authority breached section 17(3) of the FOIA by failing to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Greater Manchester Combined Authority
29 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested two parts of information from the London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) regarding its security incident reports and some information surrounding a previous request he had made. The Council provided some information and stated that it held no further information within the scope of the complainant’s request. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council discovered that it did hold more information relating to one part of the request and provided it to the complainant. Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council has breached section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA as it failed to provide all the information it held, falling within the scope of the request, within 20 working days. In relation to part 3 of the complainant’s request, any information that the Council may hold would be his own personal data and thus exempt under section 40(1) of the FOIA. As the Council has now provided this to the complainant, the Commissioner does
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View London Borough of Lambeth
29 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Rampion Offshore Windfarm. E.ON UK plc argued that it is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. It has therefore refused to respond to this request under the EIR. The Commissioner considers that E.ON UK plc is a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner therefore requires E.ON UK plc to respond to this information request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0175 PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
28 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a road closure held by the council. The council disclosed the information during the course of the Commissioner's investigation, arguing that the information had been provided to the complainant previously by email in June 2019. The complainant argues that he did not receive this email or any of the attached information but accepts that he has now received the information for this request following this disclosure. He also made a request for a copy of the email header which demonstrates that the information was provided to him in June 2019. The council did not however respond to this. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) of the EIR in that it did not respond to the complainant's initial request within 20 working days. She has also decided that the council has failed to comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(1) in that it failed to respond to the complainant's
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
28 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of complaints alleging bias received by the BBC relating to Laura Kuenssberg. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the BBC is not subject to the convention of ‘purdah’ and does not hold information on this part of the request. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
27 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Kent Police’s internal force guidance on a number of topics, including the investigation of domestic abuse. Kent Police provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 40 (personal information) and 31 (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The complainant did not object to the application of section 40. The Commissioner investigated Kent Police’s application of section 31 to the information withheld by virtue of that exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police was correct to cite sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of the FOIA and to conclude that the balance of the public interest test favoured maintaining the exemption. However, she found that Kent Police breached section 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA by not providing disclosable information within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Kent Police
27 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested polling information conducted since January 2018 on the strength of the Union (UK). The Cabinet Office refused to provide it citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) as its basis for refusing the request. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0081 appeal allowed. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2021-000017-GIRF PTA Refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
27 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a meeting between HRH The Prince of Wales and the Rt.Hon Amber Rudd, the then Home Secretary, in 2017. The Home Office would neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information, on the grounds that section 37(2) (Communications with Her Majesty, etc. and honours) of the FOIA applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information under section 37(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Home Office
27 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to property lettings. The council provided some information but refused to provide the remaining information relying of section 12 of the FOIA as it determined it would take over the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 of the FOIA is engaged. She has also found that the council has breached section 16 of the FOIA in not providing appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant. As section 12 of the FOIA is engaged, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Charnwood Borough Council
27 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about three named parties from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). In compliance with a First-tier Tribunal ruling, the MPS confirmed holding relevant information. However, it refused to disclose it citing sections 23(1) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) and, in the alternative, 24(1) (national security), as well as sections 27(1)(a) (international relations) and 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) or, in the alternative, section 24(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0087 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
27 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (“DHSC”) about the reimbursement prices of bicalutamide 50mg tablets in the April 2018 drug tariff and details about the manufacturers and wholesalers that provided information. The DHSC originally refused to provide the information by citing section 12 but, after a previous decision of the Commissioner’s ordered a fresh response, the DHSC withheld the information under section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and section 43(2)(commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has correctly withheld the information under section 41(1) and section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the DHSC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1); FOI 43(2)
View Department of Health and Social Care
27 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Home Office information concerning the county Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposal to change the governance of the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office partly complied with FOIA in withholding much of the information it held, relying on the section 35(1) and 36(2) FOIA exemptions. However the Home Office must disclose some other information which the public interest balance warrants in accordance with the Commissioner’s determination but with some personal information redacted. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information specified in the confidential annex to this decision notice. The Home Office 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 sec
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 36
View Home Office
27 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning “contact point locations”, ranked according to a demand analysis. The Commissioner’s decision is that the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Trust) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust
27 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the use of personal safety techniques in juvenile young offender institutions and secure training centres. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to comply with the request 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 MoJ 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. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0084 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Ministry of Justice
27 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Special Purpose Vehicles relating to housing. The London Borough of Waltham Forest eventually stated that it did not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough failed to discharge its duty under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA within 20 working days. It therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. As the London Borough has now discharged its section 1(1)(a) duty, no further steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Waltham Forest Council
24 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from North Tyneside Council (the Council) information relating to policy and guidance documents, and training materials for staff dealing with Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). The Council stated that it did not hold the information requested.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View North Tyneside Council
24 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the planned redevelopment of Woking Football Club’s stadium, together with and associated residential property development. The council initially withheld information under Regulation 12(5)(e). During the course of the Commissioners investigation it disclosed the majority of the information, however, it maintained redactions under Regulation 12(5)(e) and under Regulation 13(1) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(e) and Regulation 13(1) to redact sections from the information it has disclosed. She has, however, decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) in that it did not disclose information to the complainant within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2)
View Woking Borough Council
24 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested confirmation as to whether the council had provided a sum of £250,000,000 to a developer in association with plans to develop Woking Football Club’s football stadium and a residential development to facilitate this. The council refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information relevant to the request, citing section 43 of the Act, (commercial interests). However, during the course of the Commissioner's investigation of an associated case, the council published the information it holds relating to this via a weblink. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not comply with section 10(1) of the Act in that it did not disclose the information within 20 working days of receiving the request for information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 10(1)
View Woking Borough Council
23 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the London Borough) concerning a gas purchasing consortium. 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 Waltham Forest Council
23 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information about external consultants used by Newcastle City Council. The Council responded that the entirety of the requested information was already accessible by other means. The Council subsequently informed the Commissioner that its position was incorrect, and that further information was likely to be held that was not accessible to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council, by failing to fully consider the parameters of the request, has incorrectly applied section 21 to the entirety of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Issue a fresh response that does not seek to apply section 21 to the entirety of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Newcastle City Council
23 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on Cabinet Sub-Committee minutes on devolution from 1997 and 1998. The Cabinet Office refused the request in reliance of the exemption at FOIA section 35(1)(a) & (b) – Formulation of government policy, Ministerial communications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions are engaged in respect of the requested information, 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. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2020/0080 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(b); FOI 35(1)(a)
View Cabinet Office
22 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant, who is sight-impaired, sought to initiate a request to the Cabinet Office verbally. As set out in the FOIA section 45 Code of Practice (paragraph 2.5), a public authority should have procedures in place to accept verbal requests in such circumstances. He had repeated difficulties in accessing this and contacted the Commissioner about this. He raised concerns that the Cabinet Office was not complying with its obligations under FOIA section 16 (advice and assistance). The Commissioner’s decision is that at the time of the request, the Cabinet Office had appropriate systems in place to record and action requests made in this way in accordance with its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA with reference to the section 45 Code of Practice. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Cabinet Office
21 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested consultation responses received by the council regarding its Cheltenham Transport Plan Phase 4 - Boots Corner. The council refused the request on the basis that Regulation 12(4)(d) (unfinished or incomplete information) applied to withhold the information. On 30 October 2019 the Commissioner issued decision notice FS50836564 requiring the council to respond to the complainant again. The council responded again, relying upon Regulation 12(4)(b) to withhold the information (manifestly unreasonable requests). However, during the course of the Commissioner's investigation the council informed the Commissioner that after reconsidering its position it had now published redacted copies of the information via a weblink and informed the complainant that it had done so. The Commissioner has therefore considered whether the council has complied with Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. Her decision is that it has failed to comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) in that i
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Gloucestershire County Council
21 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Hertsmere Borough Council in relation to complaints received about a farm. Hertsmere Borough Council withheld the information under the exception for the course of justice – regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertsmere Borough Council has correctly withheld the information under regulation 12(5)(b) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0071 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Hertsmere Borough Council
21 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a specified address. Thames Valley Police confirmed it held information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it, citing sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement) and 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated its application of sections 31 and 38. She finds that neither section is engaged and therefore Thames Valley Police is not entitled to rely on either exemption. The Commissioner requires Thames Valley Police to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information to the complainant
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 38
View Thames Valley Police
21 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information about general warrants concerning the interception of electronic devices. The FCO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 23(1) (security bodies), 40(2) (personal data) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has concluded the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
21 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked Bolton Council for copies of the highway inspection records, records of complaints and other associated information, for an identified section of highway during a two-year period. Bolton Council refused to comply with the complainant’s request in reliance on Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR, on the grounds that disclosure of the information would adversely affect the course of justice. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bolton Council has correctly applied the exception to disclosure provided by Regulation 12(5)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Bolton Council
21 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to fire safety measures implemented at a named property by the council. The council provided some information however it said that it does not hold any other information. The complainant disputed this.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the council has now disclosed all of the information which it holds falling within the scope of the request. She has however decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) in that it did not disclose the information it holds within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(b); FOI 10(1)
View Melton Borough Council
21 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information associated with the approval of building works.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Leicestershire County Council holds no further information which is in-scope of the request. However it provided a response outside of the 20 working day time limit and therefore breached regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require any steps
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Leicestershire County Council
21 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking valuation and value for money reports relating to the purchase of an apartment in New York. The FCO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of this request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
20 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the disciplinary records of eight named police officers. The Chief Constable of Humberside Police confirmed that it held some information but refused to provide it, relying on section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal data) to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police have correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0034 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Humberside Police
20 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested particular correspondence between a named individual and other parties. NHS Nene Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) has confirmed it holds some of the requested information and that this is exempt information under section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), with the public interest favouring maintaining the exemption. The complainant is not satisfied with the CCG’s reliance on section 36(2)(c) with regard to the relevant information it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: At the time of the request, the CCG was correct to withhold the disputed information under section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA, and the public interest favoured maintaining this exemption. The CCG breached section 17(1) as it did not issue the complainant with a refusal notice within 20 working days of receiving his request. The Commissioner does not require the CCG to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0077
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36
20 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with a concluded investigation about a childminder. Ofsted has categorised the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s request is vexatious and Ofsted is not obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require Ofsted to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
20 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to changes introduced (with effect from July 2015) by DISP Rule 3.3.4AR. FOS responded, it refused to disclose the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(ii), section 36(2)(c) and section 42 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that FOS correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal UA-2021-001703-GIA (formerly GIA/439/2021) appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
20 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made three information requests for information with regards to the Hampshire Police and Crime Panel (the HPCP) sub-committee. The HPCP provided information to parts of the request and advised it did not hold information to other parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council holds further information than that provided and breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it responded to the requests outside the required 20 working days of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the complainant to the parts of his requests as identified in the decision notice at paragraphs 35, 41 and 66 below. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
17 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the City of York Council (“the Council”) relating to breaches of planning conditions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
The Council must issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
The Council 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 5(2)
View York City Council
17 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on correspondence and communications between Steve Baker and specific organisations and individuals. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Exiting the European Union (‘DExEU’) has appropriately relied on section 35(1)(a) to withhold some of the requested information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Exiting the European Union
17 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested inspectors’ notes relating to Department for Education guidelines on teaching British values and the Equality Act 2010, produced during inspections of particular schools. Ofsted has withheld the information under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA (law enforcement) and considers the public interest favours withholding the information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information requested on 22 January 2019 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 does not require Ofsted to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
17 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”), about the criteria to receive bypass surgery for lower limb revascularisation and the Trust’s roles and responsibilities within the network. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Trust has provided all the information it holds in relation to the scope of the requests. However, the Commissioner found a procedural breach of section 10(1) of the FOIA (time for compliance). The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any further steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
17 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on correspondence and communications dating from January 2018 between Steve Baker and specified individuals, Shanker Singham and Mark Littlewood and lists of attendees at specific functions declared in government transparency data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Exiting the European Union (‘DExEU’) has appropriately relied on section 35(1)(a) to withhold some of the requested information and other requested information is not held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Exiting the European Union
17 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Hampshire County Council (the Council) information consisting of a report following a visit to Hythe Primary School. The Council stated that it did not hold information as per the complainant’s description but provided some clarification on the matter.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly confirmed that the information is not held.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Hampshire County Council
17 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of the contract for the maintenance services for parks and open spaces in London Borough of Sutton, save for the details of the contracts finances and personal data contained therein. London Borough of Sutton relied on section 43 (commercial interests) sections 41 (information provided in confidence) and 42 (personal data) Freedom of Information Act 2000 to withhold requested information. 3. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is environmental but the Council could not rely on regulation 12(5) (e) (commercial confidentiality) as a basis for withholding requested information and it must therefore disclose it.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View London Borough of Sutton
17 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the harm caused to individuals’ mental health by racism and the perception of racism. North West Boroughs Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) considers it has addressed the request as far as it understands it and has released all the relevant information it holds. The Trust acknowledged that it had breached section 10 of the FOIA (time for compliance) but considered it had complied with its obligation under section 1 (general right of access). The complainant disagrees. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Trust’s final interpretation of the request is reasonable interpretation. The Trust breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA as, in its final response and internal review, it did not clearly confirm to the complainant that it does not hold the specific information he requested on 20 October 2018. The Commissioner is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Trust does not hold the information specific
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View North West Boroughs Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
16 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information in respect of suppliers of corporate finance for a specific time period. The Development Bank Wales refused the request on the basis that it was vexatious citing section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Development Bank Wales was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14