12 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Cheshire East Council (“the Council”) relating to the use of an alleyway. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental in nature; however, the Council does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request, other than information which is publicly accessible on its website. The Council breached the requirement, under regulation 14(2) of the EIR, to provide its refusal within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Cheshire East Council
12 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from West Oxfordshire District Council (the Council) information relating to the Council’s building control performance standards and site inspections. The Council provided information within the scope of some parts of the request but withheld information within the scope of parts 2 and 3 under sections 43(2) (commercial interests), 43(1) (trade secrets) and 41 (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA. Therefore, she has not gone on to consider the application of sections 43(1) and 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View West Oxfordshire District Council
12 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on Lilac Sky Schools Academy Trust, specifically minutes, invoices, expenses and other documents associated with the trust. The Department for Education refused the request on the basis of section 14 as it considered complying with the request would be burdensome due to the need to consider a number of exemptions including various subsections of section 31, section 36 and section 40. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied section 14(1) to refuse the request. She therefore does not require the DfE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for Education
12 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of 134 emails identified by the public authority following a sampling exercise undertaken by the public authority further to the application of the cost exemption at section 12 FOIA to a request the complainant had previously submitted to the authority. Relying on section 14(1) FOIA, the public authority refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it would impose a disproportionately significant burden on the authority’s resources. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 14(1) FOIA and that it was in breach of section 10(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View HM Treasury
11 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested police force data on the ‘use of force’ from the Home Office. It refused to provide the requested information citing section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) for part of the request and section 40(2) (personal information) for the remainder. The complainant requested an internal review in relation to the Home Office’s reliance on section 40(2) only. The Home Office subsequently disclosed some of the requested information but withheld the remainder under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the information in scope which was withheld under section 40(2) to the complainant within 35 calendar days of this notice to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
11 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with the Commissioner’s decision in case reference FS50624045. The ICO has confirmed that it does not hold some of the requested information. It released some of the information it does hold and its position is that the remaining information it holds is exempt information under section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal data) and section 42(1) (legal professional privilege), with the public interest favouring maintaining the latter exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information that the ICO is withholding is exempt information under section 40(2) and 42(1) and the public interest favours maintaining the section 42(1) exemption. On the balance of probabilities, the ICO complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA with regard to the case file FS50624045. The ICO did not hold that case file at the time of the request, and so did not hold any further relevant information associated with that case file. The ICO breached se
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 42
View Information Commissioner
11 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names of the lead contractors and all subcontractors listed in the tenders submitted as part of the procurement exercise for the National Roads Telecommunications Service 2 contract. Highways England Company Ltd (HE) disclosed the names of the three main bidders but refused to disclose the names of their subcontractors under the exemptions provided by section 43(2) – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the exemption provided by section 43 is engaged the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the subcontractors.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Highway Insurance Company Limited
11 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to Westminster City Council (the Council) seeking information about the judicial review of the Cycle Superhighway CS11. The Council disclosed some information but sought to withhold the remainder of the information on the basis of section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Council subsequently accepted that the request should have been considered under the EIR and sought to withhold the information under regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications), regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) and 13 (personal data). The complainant sought to challenge the Council’s reliance on regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b).
The Commissioner has concluded that some of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(5)(b) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours withholding this information. She has also concluded that some of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Westminster Council
10 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested a copy of the “tree report” for trees bordering his property. Great Wyrley Parish Council (the Council) relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of the FOIA to refuse the request, arguing that the complainant had already received responses in relation to similar matters, and continuing to discuss these matters would divert staff from their usual duties. The complainant believed that he was entitled to a copy of the tree report, due to the debris deposited by the trees on his property. 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied upon section 14(1) of the FOIA in relation to the complainant’s request. 3. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2020/0014 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
10 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a Facebook Group that is operated by a named councillor. Buckingham Town Council responded that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly confirmed that the information is not held. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps, but refers it to ‘Other matters’. Information Tribunal Appeal EA/2020/0003 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
10 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from The Diocese of Westminster Academy Trust (“the Trust”) about the cost to date of conducting an investigation into malpractice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust 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 the Trust to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
The complainant requested information from The Diocese of Westminster Academy Trust (“the Trust”) about the cost to date of conducting an investigation into malpractice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust 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 the Trust to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View THE DIOCESE OF WESTMINSTER ACADEMY TRUST
10 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested certain files related to the Spycatcher case. The Cabinet Office refused to provide them citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) as its basis for doing so on the grounds that it would incur considerable burden upon its resources. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 14 as its basis for refusing to comply with the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
10 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Great Yarmouth Borough Council (“the Council”) concerning charges in relation to planning permissions. 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. As the Council has now provided a response to this request, the Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Great Yarmouth Borough Council
10 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of internal correspondence exchanged with the Audit and Investigations Team in respect of his ongoing grievance. The London Borough of Brent refused to comply with the request because it considered the request to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and therefore the London Borough was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, to the request, under the FOIA, which does not rely on section 14(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0011 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View London Borough of Brent
10 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the number of outstanding FOI requests to West Dorset District Council (the council). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. However, the Commissioner recommends that it reviews the WDTK website and identifies any outstanding requests and respond accordingly. The council should also review the Section 46 Code of practice to ensure its new policy and procedures comply.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Lindsey District Council
10 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for documents for the Northern Powerhouse Rail Strategic Outline Business Case. Transport for the North (TfN) refused the request citing the exception provided by 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) and 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfN correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR to the withheld information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require TfN to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
10 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from The Diocese of Westminster Academy Trust (“the Trust”) about a Freedom of Information request and its response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View THE DIOCESE OF WESTMINSTER ACADEMY TRUST
10 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for various items information about a decision taken to prosecute his brother for littering. The London Borough of Brent provided some information and withheld some information which it said would attract legal advice privilege. It also stated that it did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that all the information that has been withheld is the complainant’s brother’s personal data. As the complainant has made the request on behalf of his brother, with his brother’s consent and knowledge, he was therefore standing in his brother’s shoes when making the request. As such the Commissioner has applied section 40(1) of the FOIA to prevent disclosure. She also finds that the London Borough holds no further information in respect of Request 1 and has thus complied with its section 1 duty in respect of that request. As the London Borough failed to discharge its section 1(1) duty in respect of either request within 20 work
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View London Borough of Brent
9 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence and/or communications between Calderdale Council and specified third parties. The requested information concerns the Gentleman Jack television programme filmed at Shibden Hall which is within the Council’s area. The Council provided the complainant with some of the information it holds but refused to supply other information on the grounds that it is exempt by virtue of section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Calderdale Council has properly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA to the information it is withholding.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Calderdale Council
9 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the total numbers of police officers deployed to Royal Ascot, together with the associated costs, for four specified years. Thames Valley Police (‘TVP’) refused to provide the requested information citing subsections (a) and (b) of section 31(1), the exemption for law enforcement, and said it did not hold the cost related information. The complainant is concerned only with TVP’s refusal to provide the police numbers withheld under section 31 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TVP was correct to cite sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA and to conclude that the balance of the public interest test favours maintaining the exemption. However, by failing to respond to the request and issue a refusal notice within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, the Commissioner finds that TVP has breached sections 10 (time for compliance) and 17 (refusal of a request) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require TVP to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31
View Thames Valley Police
9 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a 10 part request to Pharmacy2U. Pharmacy2U indicated that it was not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA for nine parts of the request and relied on section 21 of the FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means) to withhold information relevant to one part. During the Commissioner’s investigation Pharmacy2U reconsidered its position with regard to the request and issued a fresh response to the complainant. Pharmacy2U confirmed that it considers it is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA with regard to parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the request. Pharmacy2U says that information that it holds that is related to parts 7, 8, 9 and 10 is caught by the FOIA but is exempt information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. Pharmacy2U has released information relevant to part 6 and directed the complainant to where other information related to this
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 43
9 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for all information held between 01/03/2015 and 08/03/2019 relating to four particular search terms. NE refused to comply with the request under regulation 12(4)(c) EIR as it considered the request was formulated in too general a manner. The Commissioner considers that NE incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(c) EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the complainant not relying upon the regulation 12(4)(c) exception.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(c)
View Natural England
9 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Ofgem to disclose an itemised breakdown of all payments made under the non-domestic renewable heat initiative over the last three years. Ofgem disclosed some information to the complainant but informed him that the remainder is exempt from disclosure under regulation 13 of the EIR. At the internal review stage Ofgem revised its position and informed the complainant that it was refusing to comply with his request in accordance with regulation 12(4)(b) (on the basis of cost). The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR in this case and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exception. She has however recorded a breach of regulation 9. Although Ofgem has now provided advice and assistance, it failed to do so when it first cited regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal Appeal EA/2020/0001 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
6 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested particular correspondence and evidence of particular decisions. He is dissatisfied because the ICO has categorised his three part request as vexatious and has refused to comply with it. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s request can be categorised as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA and, as such, the ICO is not obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0468 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Information Commissioner
6 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Warrington Borough Council (the council) relating to public objections received about its 2017/2018 draft accounts. The request under consideration follows on from two previous requests that the complainant had made for similar information. In response to all three requests, the council has applied section 12(1) of the FOIA (costs exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 16(1) of the FOIA. This is because it failed to provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance to help him to bring his request within the relevant cost limits. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the council has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA as it failed to notify the complainant that it had applied section 12(1) to the request within the statutory time period. The Commissioner requires the public authority to now provide adequate advice and assistance to help the complainant refine hi
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 17(5)
View Warrington Council
6 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of all the Waste Infrastructure Delivery Programme (“WIDP”) Transactor’s Monthly Reports (“TMRs”) for Norfolk County Council’s waste treatment private finance initiative. The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (“Defra”) refused to provide the requested information, citing Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and Regulation 13(1)(third party personal data). Later, Defra also cited Regulations 12(5)(e)(confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and 12(5(f)(interests of the information provider). The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra failed to demonstrate that Regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) are engaged. She finds that Regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged but that the public interest in disclosing the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exception. She also finds that Defra is not entitled to rely on part of the information it withheld under Regulation 13(1). The Commissioner requires the
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13(1)
6 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Action Fraud. The Commissioner’s decision is that the City of London Police 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 the City of London Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View City of London Police
6 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about blackmail crimes. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey Police 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 Surrey Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Surrey Police
6 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the handling of complaints. The Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman provided some information and pointed the complainant to additional information which was already reasonably accessible to her. The Commissioner’s decision is that the LGSCO does not hold any further information within the scope of the request, beyond that which it has either provided or has identified as being reasonably accessible. It has therefore complied with its duty under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
5 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from The Diocese of Westminster Academy Trust (“the Trust”) about a Freedom of Information request and its response referred in a letter to parents/carers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust 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 the Trust to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View THE DIOCESE OF WESTMINSTER ACADEMY TRUST
5 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Shropshire Council’s highways contract. Shropshire Council (the Council) said that it did not hold the requested reports. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold information within the scope of the request. She therefore considers that the Council complied with its obligations under section 1(1) (general right of access to information) of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner found a procedural breach of section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0458 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Shropshire Council
5 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Special Branch files about the Partisan Coffee House in Soho from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to confirm or deny whether it holds any 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) (criminal investigations, 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 23(5) of the FOIA is engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Metropolitan Police Service
5 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a named police operation. West Yorkshire Police refused to confirm or deny holding the requested information, citing sections 30(3) (investigations and proceedings conducted by the public authority), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated its application of section 30(3). The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Police was entitled to rely on section 30(3) and that, in all of the circumstances of the case, the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View West Yorkshire Police
5 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in connection with a newspaper article reporting a child having being questioned about ‘radicalisation’. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(a) is not engaged, however she finds that London Borough of Redbridge (LBR) was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) and section 31(2)(i) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require LBR to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0469 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Redbridge Council
5 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to immigration outcomes. The Home Office 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 Home Office 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/2020/0008 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
5 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested stop and search data from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to disclose the requested information advising that the request was vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA, on the basis of the oppressive burden in compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to find the request vexatious. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Metropolitan Police Service
5 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to breast assessment services in Northern Ireland. The Department of Health (DoH) states that it does not hold recorded information within the scope of the complainant’s request and has already published all the information it holds regarding breast assessment services.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH, on the balance of probabilities, holds no further information within the scope of the complainant’s request. Therefore, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Department of Health and Social Care
5 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Special Branch files about the Movement for Colonial Freedom and the Kenya Provisional Committee from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to confirm or deny whether it holds any information, citing the exemptions at sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national Security), 27(4) (international relations), 30(3) (criminal investigations, 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 23(5) of the FOIA is engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Metropolitan Police Service
5 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from London Fire Brigade, a copy of its report of a fire at his property. London Fire Brigade refused the request, on the grounds that provision of the report constituted a chargeable service under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, and therefore that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Fire Brigade was entitled to refuse the request under section 21 of the FOIA
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View London Fire Brigade
5 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a high pay exercise conducted by the Department for Education (DfE) into academy trusts and for trusts to be named in relation to various categories. The DfE refused the request on the basis of section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
4 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information provided to Cotham School about Stoke Lodge Playing Fields prior to its academy conversion in 2011. Bristol City Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for the course of justice – regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bristol City Council has correctly withheld the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Bristol City Council
4 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Council’s handling of a previous FoI request he had made. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) – third party personal data – for junior administrative staff involved in the handling of the request. It is not entitled to rely on the same exemption for senior staff or those with a decision making role in the handling of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council has correctly engaged section 42 – legal professional privilege – for the withheld information and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Council breached section 1 of the FOIA by failing to supply information held falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the bundles supplied to the Commissioner entitled-Bundle 1
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2); FOI 42
View Birmingham City Council
4 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The aim of the Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC) is to promote investment in renewable energy, by entering into contracts (known as Contracts for Difference (CfDs)) with potential generators which fix the price for the electricity produced from windfarms. Under the terms of a CfD the wind farm has to be operational by an agreed date. The complainant requested information relating to whether a particular generator had applied for an extension to, what the Commissioner will refer to as, its start date on the basis that there had been a force majeure. The LCCC refused to disclose any information as to whether such a claim had been made under the regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications, 12(5)(b) – adverse affect to the course of justice, 12(5)(e) – confidentiality of commercial information, 12(5)(f) – voluntary supply of information. The Commissioner’s decision is that all the information can be withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) and that some of it can be withheld under 12(5)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Low Carbon Contracts Company
3 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the total numbers of police officers deployed to Reading Festival for three specified years. Thames Valley Police (‘TVP’) refused to provide the requested information citing subsections (a) and (b) of section 31(1), the exemption for law enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is that TVP was correct to cite sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA and to conclude that the balance of the public interest test favours maintaining the exemption. She does not require TVP to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Thames Valley Police
3 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to changes to the categorisation of the Clerk’s expenses. Sewards End Parish Council (the Parish Council) denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Parish Council did not hold information within the scope of the request. She therefore considers that the Parish Council complied with its obligations under section 1(1) (general right of access to information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0467 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/975/2020 PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
3 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Yarm Town Council (“the Council”) about a CCTV system. The Council responded, but did not inform the complainant whether it held the information he had requested, nor apparently consider any information for disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council’s response failed to comply with the requirements of section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a response to the complainant which complies with the procedural requirements of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
3 Dec 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
In two 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 HS2 rail project. With regard to the first series of requests, HS2 released information relevant to some of the requests, withholding some under regulation 12(5)(e)(commercial confidentiality). HS2 said it did not hold other information. Finally, HS2 relied on the exception under regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with one request (manifestly unreasonable request). It voluntarily provided the complainant with a small amount of relevant information outside of the EIR. With regard to two further requests, HS2 indicated it does not hold information falling within the scope of request 2.1 and has relied on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with request 2.2. The complainant considers: HS2 holds information in relation to five of the requests; incorrectly relied on regulation 12(4)(
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 9
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
3 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the fundraising policy. The National Portrait Gallery (the Gallery) refused the request under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner is satisfied that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) are engaged. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View National Portrait Gallery
3 Dec 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about grievances and the associated investigation reports relating to the Dublin Cessation Team, (formerly known as the Third Country Unit), from the Home Office. The request was refused by the Home Office on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA, the exemption for personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has correctly cited section 40(2) in refusing to provide the requested information. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
3 Dec 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to physical assaults on staff. The Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has incorrectly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the suppressed numbers for Q7, Q8 and Q11. 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 40
View Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust