19 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to trustees. The council responded to the complainant, but the complainant did not consider the council was clear as to whether it held the information requested or not. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 1(1) of the FOIA as it has not confirmed to the complainant whether or not the information requested is held or not. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (2000). The public authority must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
19 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the programme of works associated with flood defences of the River Elwy at St Asaph. Natural Resources Wales (‘NRW’) provided some information and applied regulation 12(4)(d) to some parts of request. At the time of its internal review NRW disclosed additional information. The complainant alleged that NRW had failed to provide the specific information held relating to one part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities NRW does not hold any additional information relevant to the request other than that which it has disclosed. However, the Commissioner finds that NRW breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR in failing to provide all of the requested information within the required timescale. The Commissioner also finds that NRW breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR in failing to carry out an internal review within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Natural Resources Wales
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
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 partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Education (“the DfE”) relating to a specific academy trust being identified as a suitable sponsor for the Barclay School, Stevenage (“the Barclay School”), which is now known as Barclay Academy. The DfE provided some information to the complainant, but also withheld some information under section 36(2) – prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs – and section 40(2) – third party personal data. It also withheld some information as falling outside the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE correctly withheld some of the information in accordance with the relevant provisions of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner has determined that: the DfE incorrectly identified some information as falling outside the scope of the request; some of the information withheld under section 40(2) is not exempt; and the balance of the public interest favours the disclosure of some of the information withheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36; FOI 40(2)
View Department for Education
19 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (“PSNI”) in relation to disciplinary proceedings against a police officer. The PSNI refused to disclose the requested information, citing the exemptions at sections 31 and 40(2) as a basis for non-disclosure.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI has correctly applied section 31 of the FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner did not go on to consider the PSNI’s application of section 40(2) as she considered that section 31 applied to the entirety of the requested information. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0043 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
19 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Royal College of Art (the college) employment dates of a former employee. The college applied section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the college has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Royal College of Art
19 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a variety of information relating to “water collection” in the London Borough of Waltham Forest (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 Waltham Forest Council
19 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) about NHS organisations and concerns relating to NHS Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The CQC refused the request, citing the cost limit as set out in section 12(1) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View CQC
19 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a Schedule of Works for property repairs. Barrow Borough Council withheld the information under the exemption for prejudice to commercial interests – section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Barrow Borough Council has correctly withheld the requested information under section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0024 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
19 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested previous iterations of a form. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1). It considered the request to be vexatious, as it believes there is no public interest, purpose or value in the disclosure of the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) does not apply to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: revisit the request and issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA that does not rely on section 14(1). The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
19 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Hampshire Police and Crime Panel (HPCP) information relating to its organisational matters, expenses, complaints management, budget and terms of reference. HPCP provided the complainant with information in relation to some parts of the request and stated that it did not hold information for the remaining parts of the information request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that HPCP, on the balance of probabilities, has provided all the information it held within the scope of the remaining part of the request.
The Commissioner does not require HPCP to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
19 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested numbers of citizenship deprivation orders for a two year period from the Home Office (“HO”). The HO refused to provide this citing the exemptions at sections 23(1) (information supplied by, or relating to, security bodies) and section 24(1) (national security) in the alternative. At internal review stage it added reliance on section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) in respect of part (2) of the request. It subsequently withdrew reliance in section 36(2)(c), but added reliance on sections 27(1)(a)(c) and (d) (international relations). The Commissioner is satisfied that the 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Home Office
19 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant had requested information from London Borough of Waltham Forest (the London Borough) about the “Mall Walthamstow” development. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough did not breach either Regulations 5(2) or 6(1) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR).
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); EIR 6(1)
View Waltham Forest Council
18 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the qualifications and training held by specific council officers. Reigate and Banstead Borough Council withheld the information under the exemption provided for personal data by section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0017 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
18 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking correspondence between it and the University of Southampton regarding the purchase of the ‘Mountbatten Archive’. The Cabinet Office disclosed some information to the complainant but sought to withhold further information falling within the scope of his request on the basis of sections 21 (reasonably accessible to the requester), 23 (security bodies), 26 (defence), 27 (international relations), 35 (formulation and development of government policy), 40 (personal data), 41 (information provided in confidence), 42 (legal professional privilege), 43 (commercial interests) and 44 (statutory prohibition) of FOIA. The complainant also submitted a further request to the Cabinet Office seeking a schedule of the correspondence falling within the scope of his request. The Commissioner has concluded that only some of the information which the Cabinet Office is seeking to withhold is exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemptio
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 26; FOI 27; FOI 37; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 44
View Cabinet Office
18 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any information held about the British Spartacist League from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding the requested information, citing the exemptions at sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security), 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 23(5) to NCND whether or not it holds the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Metropolitan Police Service
18 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about ministerial meetings from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). BEIS has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires BEIS to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. BEIS must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Business and Trade
18 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Historic England (HE) relating to a planning application. HE provided some information but withheld the rest under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – adversely affect the course of justice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information held by HE is environmental in nature. However, since the requested information relates to the complainant’s own property, the Commissioner pro-actively considered regulation 5(3) of the EIR. She determined that the withheld information is the personal data of the requester and, as such, under regulation 5(3), there is no duty to disclose the information under the EIR. The Commissioner does not require HE to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0022 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(3)
View Historic England
18 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Council in relation to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) developments. The Council directed the complainant towards some of the information which was publicly available, and refused to disclose the remainder (“the withheld information) citing regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to the withheld information. Therefore, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
18 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The applicant has requested information relating to a major programme of works on a block of flats. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Enfield (the Council) was entitled to aggregate all six requests in accordance with section 12(4) of FOIA. However, it has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the application of section 12(1). The Commissioner also finds that the Council incorrectly cited section 14(1) of the FOIA in response to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response without relying on either of the previously cited exemptions. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 14
View Enfield Council
18 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a series of requests to the University of Southampton (the University) regarding the ‘Mountbatten Archive’ which concerns the papers of Lord and Lady Mountbatten. The University provided some of the information requested, but sought to withhold further information on the basis of a variety of exemptions within FOIA, namely: 37(1)(a) (communications with the Sovereign), 40(2) (personal data), 41(1) (information provided in confidence), 43(2) (commercial interests) and 44(1) (statutory prohibition). The University also argued that it did not hold some of the information that had been requested and that to provide some of the information would exceed the appropriate cost limit at section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that only some of these exemptions have been applied correctly. Furthermore, whilst she has concluded that section 12 has been applied correctly, and the University does not hold some of the additional information alleged by the compl
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 3; FOI 37; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43; FOI 44
View University of Southampton
18 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the number of contractors discovered to have been using disguised remuneration schemes whilst engaged by the public authority. The public authority claimed that it did not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner concluded that on the balance of probabilities the public authority does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
18 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details relating to the costs of two employment tribunal cases involving teachers at Alderman Davies Church in Wales Primary School (‘the School’). The School provided some information and stated other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the School does not hold information about the costs paid in respect of one of the employment tribunal cases. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 3
18 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant has requested information relating to the issuing of invitations to panel members for the BBC programme Question Time. The BBC said that the requested information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall within the scope of 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
17 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to negotiations between a record company and the council regarding a music festival. The council applied a number of exemptions to withhold information, including section 36(2)(i) and (ii) and section 36(2)(c). Following discussions with the Commissioner the complainant agreed to only appeal the application of section 36 to the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 36(2)(i) and (ii), and section 36(2)(c) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Ipswich Borough Council
17 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (the Council) concerning a decision to postpone a project. The Council responded to advise that it did not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, based on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0029 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Kingston upon Thames Council
17 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about “all incidents” which had taken place within a specified area over the preceding five years. Lancashire Constabulary provided some of the requested information but withheld the remainder citing section 40(2), the exemption for personal information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, he subsequently stipulated that he only required the information for one of the fifteen incidents in scope. This had been partially disclosed to him, with the remaining information withheld under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is only engaged in respect of a telephone number and a vehicle registration mark. By failing to communicate the non-exempt information it held by the time of the internal review and to provide its initial response to the request within the statutory 20 working days’ time limit, Lancashire Constabulary has breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA. By failing to issue its section 40(2) refusal notice
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View Lancashire Constabulary
17 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking emails held by the Nigerian section which mentioned certain key words relating to an oil field. The FCO provided some information falling within the scope of the request but withheld parts of the information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (b) (international relations), 31(1)(a) and (c) (law enforcement) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. It also refused to confirm or deny whether it held any further information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 23(5) (security bodies) and 24(2) (national security) of FOIA. The complainant argued that the FCO should have considered his request under the EIR and in any event disputed the application of the various FOIA exemptions it had cited. The Commissioner has concluded that the request should be considered under FOIA and that the FCO is entitled to rely on sections 27(1)(a) and 40(2) to withhold information. She has also con
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27; FOI 40
17 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Dudley College of Technology (“the college”) a copy of an audit report, “Funding Advisory Support, Final Report, 18 March 2019” (“the Report”) carried out by the auditors RSM into Dudley College and its tracking systems. The college refused to provide the requested information, citing section 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 43(2)(commercial prejudice). Later, the college also cited section 41(1)(information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the college correctly cited section 36(2)(b)(ii) to the requested information and was entitled to withhold it. The Commissioner does not require the college to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
17 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking internal FCO analysis about Mexican and Central American migrants crossing the US-Mexican border. The FCO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but it sought to withhold this on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and 40(2) personal data of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) and section 40(2). However, she has also concluded that the FCO breached section 17(3) of FOIA by failing to conclude its public interest test considerations and provide the complainant with a substantive response to his request within a reasonable timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27; FOI 40
17 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the GMC to disclose the evidence base for its refusal to investigate a complaint brought to it. The GMC refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held citing section 40(5A) and 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held in this case in accordance with section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA. She does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal Appeal EA/2020/0018 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View GMC
17 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specific information held by the council relating to Welcome to Yorkshire (WTY). The council said that it only holds information falling within the scope of the request on behalf of WTY rather than on its own behalf. It argued therefore that it does not hold any information for the purposes of its obligations under the FOI Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to find that it holds no information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
17 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to claimants of benefits who had committed suicide. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) does not hold information further to that already disclosed. However, the Commissioner does find that DWP breached section 10 by not providing the disclosed information within the statutory time frame. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any further steps with regards to this request. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2020/0027 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
16 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to five named individuals. The Ministry of Defence (“the MOD”) refused to comply with the request citing section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is not obliged to comply with the request in reliance of section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also considers the MOD to have fulfilled its duty to provide advice and assistance further to section 16 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Ministry of Defence
16 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of a Joint Working Team manual published in March and June 2019.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) does not hold information within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require the PHSO to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0103 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
16 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about the amount of money it received from the European Union. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View BBC
16 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics about claims submitted to county courts. The Ministry of Justice withheld the requested information, which it claimed was held by virtue of being contained within court records. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ is entitled to rely on section 32 of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
16 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of people who had been made subject to Staffordshire County Council’s Policy for Dealing with ‘Unreasonably Persistent Complainants’ and ‘Unreasonable Complainant Behaviour’. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire County Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request beyond that which it has previously disclosed. The Commissioner does not require Staffordshire County Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal Appeal EA/2020/0010 Under Appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Staffordshire County Council
16 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a list of structural reports where the structure’s condition was most recently described as “dangerous.” Highways England refused the request because it estimated that the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that HE should have dealt with the request under the EIR, but that the request was Manifestly Unreasonable and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. HE was therefore entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. She also finds that HE complied with its Regulation 9 duty to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View National Highways
16 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from West Yorkshire Police about their adherence to the National Security System Policy. West Yorkshire Police has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires West Yorkshire Police to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. West Yorkshire Police must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West Yorkshire Police
16 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Tier 2 visa refusals. DHSC refused to disclose the requested information under section 35(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) FOIA was applied incorrectly to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
16 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) about an incident at Sellafield. The Commissioner’s decision is that CNC has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires CNC to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Civil Nuclear Constabulary
16 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Gross External Area (GEA) data in relation to 34 specified addresses. The Valuation Office Agency refused to confirm or deny holding information as it argued that to do so would breach another piece of legislation. The Commissioner’s decision is that VOA is entitled to rely upon section 44(2) of the FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Valuation Office Agency
13 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any communications between the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and various current and former ministers, regarding the British Indian Ocean Territory (Citizenship) Bill 2017–19 (“the Bill”) and the immigration status of Chagossians. The Home Office refused the request, stating that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy etc) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
13 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a meeting that took place on 12 February 2014 between Councillor Sir Albert Bore and the then Secretary of State Michael Gove to discuss the ‘Trojan Horse’ letter. The Department for Education (DfE) refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 36(2)(b), 36(2)(c) and 41 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation two documents were disclosed to the complainant in response to a very similar request he made to Birmingham City Council (BCC). The third document is the notes taken by the DfE of the meeting, which the DfE maintains is still exempt from disclosure. The Commissioner has considered these notes and with the exception of the small amount of information quoted in the Confidential Annex she has decided that the DfE is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b) of the FOIA and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exemption. For the small amount of information contained in the Confidential Annex, t
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
13 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Hastings Borough Council (the council) about the number of planning notification letters that were sent over a specific time period, and the total costs associated with this. 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 request. However, as it did not provide the complainant with the relevant information within 20 working days, it is the Commissioner’s decision that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
13 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with an event held by the ICO. The ICO addressed part of the complainant’s request, released some information that had been requested and withheld other information under sections 31 (law enforcement), 40 (personal data), 43 (commercial confidentiality) and 44 (prohibitions on disclosure). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the ICO withdrew its reliance on sections 31, 43 and 44. It released some of the requested information, but continued to withhold some under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The ICO can rely on section 40(2) to withhold the remaining information that the complainant has requested; it is the personal data of third persons and disclosing that information would not be lawful. The ICO breached section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) with regard to the information it disclosed on 13 November 2019, as it did not communicate this information to the complainant within 20 working days of the date
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View Information Commissioner
13 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Stevenage Borough Council (“the Council”) information about a proposed town centre redevelopment scheme. The Council refused to comply with the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b) (request is manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Stevenage Borough Council
13 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
In three series of requests the complainant – a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of a client - has requested information associated with the relocation of a Heathrow Express depot as part of the High Speed 2 rail project. With regard to the first series of requests, the Department for Transport (DfT) provided information relevant to some of the requests. It originally relied on the exception under regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with four requests (manifestly unreasonable request). However, it subsequently complied with one of these but confirmed to the Commissioner that it was relying on 12(4)(b) with regard to another of the requests. DfT withheld other information under regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial interests) and regulation 13 (personal data).With regard to a second series of requests, DfT’s position is that it did not hold information within the scope of one of the requests at the time it was submitted. DfT released information it considered falls within the scop
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5; EIR 9
View Department for Transport