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
16 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested salary details for two advertised posts from Translink. Translink refused to provide the requested information on the basis that it is personal information, and thus exempt from disclosure under section 40(2)(personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40 is not engaged. The Commissioner requires Translink to disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
16 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to various sub-contracting institutions providing educational services on behalf of the University of Staffordshire (“the University”). The request was refused on the basis of section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 43(2) exemption is not engaged in relation to the copies of contracts and number of full-time equivalent students (parts 1 and 2 of the request). However, she finds that the exemption is engaged in relation to the gross fee income and invoices (parts 3 and 4 of the request) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information requested at parts (1) and (2) of the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0076 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
16 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of internal communications relating to previous correspondence he has sent to the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council (“the Council”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Birmingham City Council
16 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a grant provided to Soho Road Business Improvement District (BID). The National Lottery Community Fund (NLCF) answered most of the questions asked and provided some information but stated it did not hold information on the number of magazines published and refused to provide unredacted copies of invoices on the basis of section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NLCF does not hold any further information on the number of magazines published and has correctly withheld the full content of the invoices on the basis of section 43(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View The National Lottery Community Fund
14 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested data on record-keeping discrepancies. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Chief Constable of Gwent Police failed to confirm or deny holding information and failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days. It therefore breached sections 10 and 17 of the FOIA respectively. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View Gwent Police
14 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding nominations to the Honours Committee for various individuals. The Cabinet Office disclosed some information regarding one individual but withheld the remaining information under sections 37(1)(b) and 41(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 37(1)(b) to withhold the information within the scope of request 1. However, she finds that with respect to requests 2-5, section 36(2)(c) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information falling within the scope of requests 2-5 to ensure compliance with the legislation. 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/2020/0063 dispose
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
13 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about honours that Gordon Banks, the professional footballer, had been nominated for. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information fall within the scope of the request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 37(1)(b) (honours), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA.
The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 37(1)(b) and that in all of the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
13 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about drugs found on ships in a specified area and over a significant time period. After initially refusing the request under section 31 of FOIA, the exemption for law enforcement, the Home Office revised its position at internal review and instead said it could ‘neither confirm nor deny’ on cost grounds whether it held the requested information, citing section 12(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to neither confirm nor deny the request in accordance with section 12(2) of FOIA. She also finds that it complied with its section 16 obligations to provide advice and assistance. The complainant also asked the Commissioner to consider the delays in this case. Having done so, the Commissioner finds the Home Office responded to the request within the statutory 20 working days’ time limit, therefore, there was no breach of sections 1 or 10 of FOIA. She has commented on the internal review delay
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
13 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the qualifications and professional development record of a named Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) employee. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for Work and Pensions
13 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the minutes for a closed meeting. Chepstow Town Council provided some information but not within 20 working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to comply with section 1(1) of the FOIA within 20 working days and thus breached section 10 of the FOIA. It also failed to provide an adequate refusal notice within 20 working days and therefore also breached section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
10 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a building dispute which occurred between a school and a building company in 2015. The council refused to disclose some information on the basis that section 40(2) of the Act applied (personal data), section 32 (court records) and section 42 (legal professional privilege). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the council also applied section 41 in place of its application of section 32. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 40(2), section 41, and section 42 to withhold information. She has also decided that on a balance of probabilities no further information is held by the council. She has, however, decided that the council did not comply with section 10(1) of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0066 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 41; FOI 42
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
10 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) various information relating to its operations. The MHCLG refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA because it considered that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the MHCLG to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0068 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
10 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the costs to the ICO of the provision of legal services by outside bodies. The ICO has withheld the information it holds under section 40(2) (personal data) and 43 of the FOIA (commercial interests) and considers the public interest favours maintaining the section 43 exemption. Regarding section 43, the complainant considers that there is greater public interest in releasing the information he has requested, than in withholding it. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The withheld information engages the exemption under section 43(2) of the FOIA and, in line with section 2(2)(b), the public interest favours withholding the requested information under this exemption. The ICO breached section 17(1) as it did not refuse the request within the required timescale of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0019 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 43
View Information Commissioner
10 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of complaints received by the Question Time production team. 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. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
10 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to named individuals he believes attended the University of Westminster (“the University”). Subject to section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA, the University neither confirmed nor denied whether it held the requested information, as to do so would disclose the personal data of third parties.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the University of Westminster has correctly withheld the information in reliance of the exemption at section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View The University of Westminster
9 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about looked-after children. Specifically, she asked to know about the number of instances where other local authorities had placed children in care in Salford City Council’s (SCC) area, and the number of instances where SCC had placed children in care in other local authority areas. SCC disclosed most of the information falling within scope of the request. It refused to disclose a small amount of information about placements it had made in other local authority areas, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SCC was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0057 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Salford City Council
9 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about care placements for looked-after children. Specifically, she asked to know about the number of instances where other local authorities had placed children in care in Sunderland City Council’s (SC) area, and the number of instances where SC had placed children in care in other local authority areas. SC disclosed some information, but where the placement number was five or less, it refused to disclose the information, citing the exemption at section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SC was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. However, it was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the names of the local authorities that had placed children in care in SC’s area. The Commissioner requires SC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the names of the local authorities that placed children i
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Sunderland City Council
9 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about looked-after children. Specifically, she asked to know about the number of instances where other local authorities had placed children in care in St Helens Council’s (SHC) area, and the number of instances where SHC had placed children in care in other local authority areas. SHC disclosed much of the information falling within scope of the request. However, it refused to disclose the number of placements made by, or with, individual councils, where this was five or less, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SHC was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold this information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0053 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View St Helens Council
9 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to material referred to in a published report. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, Staffordshire Police revisited its handling of parts (1) and (2) of the request. It confirmed it held information within the scope of part (1) of the request but denied holding information within the scope of part (2) of the request. The Commissioner investigated whether Staffordshire Police held information within the scope of part (2) of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Staffordshire Police did not hold information within the scope of that part of the request. However, the Commissioner finds that Staffordshire Police breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the FOIA by not confirming whether it held the requested information within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Staffordshire Police
9 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a case review. Hull City Council concluded that it did not hold the information for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is not held by the council for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Kingston upon Hull City Council
9 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Ormiston Academies Trust in Birmingham (“the Trust”) relating to health and safety and public relations. The Trust initially withheld some information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. It did not provide details of any public interest test that may have been carried out. Following the complainant’s referral of the matter to the Commissioner, the Trust provided the information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust breached section 10(1) of the FOIA (time for compliance with a request). The Trust also failed to comply with sections 17(1) and 17(3) of the FOIA respectively in the manner of its refusal of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View ORMISTON ACADEMIES TRUST
8 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to air quality plans relating to the City of Coventry. The council refused the request on the basis that Regulation 12(4)(d) applied (unfinished documents or incomplete material). It also refused part of the request on the basis that Regulation 12(4)(b) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) and 12(4)(d) to the information, and that the public interest rests within the exceptions being maintained. However, she has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) in that it did not provide the requested information which it did provide within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 5(2)
View Coventry City Council
8 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a variety of information relating to the content and findings of the “BIT study”, the evidence compiled in support of it, and the terms of reference which resulted in the study’s undertaking. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
8 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding Financial Investigation Unit (FIU) of the Child Maintenance Group (CMG).
The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) originally cited section 31 to withhold the information it held and confirmed that it did not hold further information within the scope of the request. During the course of the investigation, DWP withdrew its reliance on section 31 and disclosed the withheld information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold information further to that previously disclosed. However, she does find that DWP breached section 10 by not disclosing the requested information within the statutory timeframe.
The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
8 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to payments made to a named third party organisation. The Home Office neither confirmed nor denied holding any information within the scope of the request, by virtue of sections 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information by virtue of section 24(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0016 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Home Office
8 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from NHS England in the form of slide packs relating to a speech given in 2015 by Jeremy Hunt about proposals for an NHS seven day service. NHS England refused to provide the information explaining that it would be withheld under section 36 in line with extant Appeals concerning the slide packs, later stating that it did not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has failed to demonstrate that it does not hold the requested information and has therefore failed to comply with section 1 of the FOIA. Additionally, NHS England did not engage sufficiently with the complainant to establish what he was requesting before it stated that the information was not held. Therefore the Commissioner finds that NHS England breached its section 16 duty to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Issue a fresh response to
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View NHS England
8 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information concerning the CCTV installed at “Northwood Tower”. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Waltham Forest (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
7 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the investigation into a death in custody. The Independent Office for Police Conduct refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the IOPC was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0015 dismissed. Information Tribunal UT UA-2021-001701-GIA formerly GIA/404/2021 PTA Granted
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
7 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to financial arrangements concerning social care for one of the Councillor’s inlaws. The London Borough of Ealing (the “Council”) refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information citing section 40 (personal data exemption) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ealing Council
7 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information relating to the awarding of an honour to Vijay Patel, the CEO of Waymade Healthcare. The Cabinet Office 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 37(1)(b) (honours) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that all of the withheld information falls within the scope of section 37(1)(b) of FOIA. For the majority of this information the Commissioner has concluded that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, the Commissioner has concluded that for some of this information the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. This information therefore needs to be disclosed. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0050 allowed in part. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0093 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
7 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about the provision of medical care given to Gurkhas. The MOD provided the complainant with a document falling within the scope of his request albeit with redactions on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The complainant argued that in addition to this information the MOD was likely to hold a copy of a submission made by a former Adjutant General but this document had not been provided to him. The MOD explained that it had searched for this document but it could not be located.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Defence
7 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a wind farm from Powys County Council (the council). The council has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the council to provide the complainant with a response to this 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
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Powys County Council
7 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Eastleigh Borough Council which concerns a housing development at Pitmore Road, Eastleigh. The Council refused to comply with the complainant’s request on the grounds that it is manifestly unreasonable and in reliance on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Eastleigh Borough Council has correctly applied Regulation 12(4)(b) to the complainant’s request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0052 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Eastleigh Borough Council
7 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police about an incident at Gatwick Airport. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police 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 Sussex Police
7 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Western Power Distribution (“WPD”) relating to the proposed construction of a wall on his land. WPD refused to provide the requested information, withholding it under regulation 12(4)(e)(internal communications), regulations 12(5)(b)(the course of justice), 12(5)(e)(confidentiality of commercial or industrial information), 12(5)(f)(interests of the information provider) and 13(1)(personal data). Subsequently WPD confirmed that it did not hold part of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that WPD has correctly withheld the information under the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b), 12(5)(f) and 13(1). However, the Commissioner finds that WPD breached the legislation by not responding to the complainant within 20 working days and by failing to confirm that part of the information was not held. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0049 allowed
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2)
7 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested video footage from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) of an incident it attended. The MPS refused to provide this, citing the exemptions at sections 30 (investigations and proceedings) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40 is engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
7 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainants requested various information from South Cambridge District Council in relation to planning permissions considered, granted and refused, tree preservations orders and environmental assessments. South Cambridge District Council disclosed the requested information, with some minor redactions for personal data with which the complainants did not take issue. By responding late, the Commissioner’s decision is that South Cambridge District Council has breached Regulations 5(2) and 11(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require South Cambridge District Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(2); EIR 5(2)
View South Cambridgeshire District Council
6 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from King Edward VI Academy Trust, Birmingham (“the Trust”) regarding responses from a public consultation about catchment areas. The Trust provided some information but stated that other information either was not held, or was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. She also considers that the Trust has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) (general right of access to information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 40(2)
6 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 whether Dominic Rabb had been the subject of any complaints when he was employed by the FCO during the period 2000 to 2006. The FCO relied on section 40(5) (personal data) of FOIA to refuse to confirm whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request.The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO is not entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
6 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to green claims. Highways England refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) FOIA as it considered the request to be vexatious. The Commissioner considers that Highways England incorrectly applied section 14(1) FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the complainant not relying upon section 14(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View National Highways
6 Jan 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between the Equality and Human Rights Commission (the EHRC) and Girl Guides UK (GG) between specified dates relating to transgender guidance. The EHRC refused to disclose the requested information citing section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(a) to (c). The Commissioner’s decision is that the EHRC is entitled to withhold the remaining withheld information under section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(a) to (c) and the public interest rests in maintaining this exemption. She does not therefore require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
6 Jan 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested risk assessments from High Speed 2 Limited (HS2). HS2 withheld the requested information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material still in the course of completion) and said that the public interest favoured maintaining this exception. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: HS2 correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(4)(d) and the public interest favoured maintaining this exception. HS2 breached regulation 14(2) as it did not refuse the request within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require HS2 to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0088 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 14
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
2 Jan 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested recorded information from the East Riding of Yorkshire Council which concerns the disposal or the proposed disposal of a golf course which is occupied by the Belvedere Golf Club. Specifically, the complainant has asked for any documents, letters, emails, meetings and telephone call notes which refer to the Golf Club, or to any developer or developer’s agent. The Council has refused the complainant’s request on the grounds that the information he seeks is subject to an application of Regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the East Riding of Yorkshire Council has correctly applied the exceptions to disclosure provided by Regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Council is therefore entitled to withhold the information which the complainant has asked for. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0033 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
20 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to policy and guidance documents and training materials for staff dealing with Penalty Charge Notices (PCN). The Commissioner’s decision is that City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the council) has incorrectly cited section 43(2) in response to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the requested information to the complainant ensuring any personal data is redacted. 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 43(2)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
20 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Birmingham City Council (the Council) information in the form of correspondence prior to a Council’s decision to restore an indemnity to a named primary school. The Council confirmed that it held information within the scope of the request but refused to disclose it under section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. It also cited section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA in relation to some of the information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0032 dismissed / refused.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 42(1) of the FOIA to withhold the information.
Bearing in mind that the Commissioner decided that the withheld information is exempt under section 42(1) in its entirety, she did not deem it necessary to also consider the application of section 40(2).
Therefore, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Birmingham City Council
19 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to Ofgem for emails received by the Chief Executive and the Director of Conduct and Enforcement during a specific time period in February 2019. Ofgem refused the requests citing section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests) as its basis for doing so. Ofgem claimed that section 14(1) applied because compliance with each request would constitute a grossly oppressive burden. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the requests. The Commissioner requires Ofgem to issue fresh responses to the requests which do not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0036 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
19 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested technical information about fire hoses. Essex Fire and Rescue Service refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and therefore the Service was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the Service to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, under the FOIA, to the request, which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Essex County Fire and Rescue Service
19 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about spending by illness. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and UKRI was therefore entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0030 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View UK Research and Innovation
19 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about the policing of an industrial dispute in 1983. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office 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 Home Office