20 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the costs associated with a specified legal action undertaken by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Bromley (“the Council”) failed to respond in accordance with the Act to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a substantive response, under the Act, to the request. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Bromley Council
19 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding procedures for conducting investigations. NHSE England (“NHSE”) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1), as it considered the request to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSE was correct to apply section 14(1) to the request. The Commissioner does not require NHSE to take any further action. Information Tribunal Appeal EA/2020/0038 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View NHS England
19 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the numbers of cancelled operations. Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the Trust breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
19 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the costs incurred in a judicial review. The Crown Prosecution Service refused the request because it argued that it had responded to the same request already. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was not entitled to rely on section 14(2) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the CPS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, to the request, which does not rely on section 14(2) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(2)
View Crown Prosecution Service
19 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Rochester airfield development. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) refused to provide the requested information, relying on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure) in order to do so. In particular the CAA cited the statutory prohibition on disclosure created by section 23 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CAA has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) and the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Civil Aviation Authority
19 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested particular meeting minutes and papers from the Canal & River Trust (‘CRT’). CRT did not provide a response to the request. Its position for a number of months was that it was not obliged to provide any response since the requested information fell outside the scope of its obligations under the FOIA. CRT subsequently provided the complainant with a response to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: CRT breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not provide the complainant with a response to his request within 20 working days. Since CRT has now responded to the request, the Commissioner does not require it to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Canal and River Trust
19 Nov 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the numbers of parents prosecuted for child abuse in the Family Court over a specified one year period. The CPS told him that the request could not be answered on cost grounds and refused it citing section 12(1) of FOIA – the cost of compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA in relation to this request. However, by failing to demonstrate that it had considered its advice and assistance obligations, the CPS has breached section 16 of FOIA. In the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner has not ordered any steps as there does not appear to be any obvious way of refining the request to bring it under the cost limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Crown Prosecution Service
19 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from PSNI regarding a reciprocal agreement with An Garda Síochána in the Republic of Ireland. PSNI has failed to respond to the request; therefore the Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI has failed to comply with section 10(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
19 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Payment Systems Regulator (the PSR) about the banks lobbying over push payment scams. The PSR refused to provide the requested information, relying on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure) in order to do so. In particular the PSR cited the statutory prohibition on disclosure created by the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 (FSBRA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSR has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) and the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Payment Systems Regulator
19 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a specific pre-planning application. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the London Borough of Croydon provided most of the requested information. It withheld some information in reliance on the exception at regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 13 in respect of the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View London Borough of Croydon
19 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from North East London NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) about complaints against the Trust, overpayments and information requests to the Trust. The Commissioner’s decision is that 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 North East London NHS Foundation Trust
19 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to former prisoners residing at a specified address. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information within the scope of parts (1) and (2) of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
19 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the minutes of an adult safeguarding board meeting and a list of the attendees. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council originally provided a redacted version of the minutes but subsequently provided all the information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to provide all the information it held within the scope of the request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
18 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested ‘public rights of way’ spatial data. Leicestershire County Council initially refused to provide the information citing EIR 6(1) – Form and format of information. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council reconsidered the request and subsequently provided the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR because it provided the information outside of the required 20 working days. As the information has now been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Leicestershire County Council
15 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Gloucestershire County Council (the Council) information in relation to 104 sold properties and the subjects to whom they were sold. The Council confirmed that it held the information requested but refused to disclose it stating that it was reasonably accessible from the Land Registry (LR) and it cited section 21 of the FOIA as its basis for the refusal.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 21 of the FOIA in relation to the complainant’s information request.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Gloucestershire County Council
15 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a parking services contract. The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames had failed to issue a substantive response at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Royal Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Kingston upon Thames Council
15 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about meetings with the Road Haulage Association and the employment of nurses to process medical data. The Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency had yet to respond to the request at the date of the notice as it was considering the balance of the public interest. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA has not completed its public interest considerations within a reasonable timeframe and has thus breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DVLA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
15 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the number of Joint Intelligence Committee papers written on Ukraine. 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
14 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Finance of Northern Ireland (‘DoF’) relating to a recruitment process within the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS). The DoF refused the request, citing the cost limit as set out in section 12(1) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoF has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request and therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department of Finance
14 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from East Hampshire District Council (“the Council”) about a 2008 decision of the Planning Inspector in relation to the terms of a section 106 agreement. The Council considered the request under the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council, in informing the complainant that it did not hold any further recorded information falling within the scope of the request, as explained in this notice, correctly refused the request under regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, and complied with the requirements of regulation 9 – advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0451 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 9
View East Hampshire District Council
14 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a decision to refuse to commission a particular treatment. NHS Devon CCG (the CCG) explained that, as it had not refused to commission that treatment, it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the clear focus of the request is on a decision to refuse to commission that particular treatment. The CCG has provided evidence to demonstrate it did not refuse to the commission the treatment. Therefore the Commissioner is satisfied it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
14 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a surveyor’s report related to fire door replacement works at their property.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the London Borough of Haringey (“the London Borough”), does not hold any further information to that already disclosed.
The Commissioner finds that the London Borough breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by not complying with section 1(1)(a) within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days.
The Commissioner does not require the London Borough to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Haringey Council
13 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Homes England information in relation to the allocation of a “Transition Grant Fund” to Liverpool City Council. Homes England provided the information it considered to be held within the scope of the request. The complainant was dissatisfied with the amount of information received.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Homes England did not hold any further information within the scope of the request to that which was disclosed. She therefore considers that the Council complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Homes England
13 Nov 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a database of drill rap gang music videos. The Metropolitan Police Service refused to disclose the requested information citing the section 30(1) (investigations and proceedings), section 38(1) (health and safety) and section 40(2) (personal information) FOIA exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Metropolitan Police Service was entitled to rely on section 30(1) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner also decided that the Metropolitan Police Service had breached section 17(1) FOIA as it took longer than 20 working days to provide inform the complainant which exemptions it was relying on. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 30
View Metropolitan Police Service
13 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to payments of income from the University following expiration of their contractual entitlement to sick pay. The University refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was correct to apply section 12 FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not however consider that the University provided the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with the University’s obligations under section 16 FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Sheffield Hallam University
12 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information in respect of the TrawsCymru bus network. The Welsh Government refused the request on the basis that it is vexatious citing section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Welsh Government
12 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about traffic counts prior to the introduction of a 20 miles per hour speed limit in a specified area. Sefton Council (the ‘Council’) interpreted the request as being for five streets for which it had previously provided related information. Following further correspondence from the complainant, in which it became apparent that he required the information for more streets than had been initially considered by the Council, it subsequently cited section 12(1) of FOIA, the cost of compliance, but chose to provide the information for 67 counts up to the cost limit, despite not being obligated to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have interpreted the request as being for information for the “whole of L23” from the outset, as stated by the complainant in his request, and therefore should have cited section 12(1) in response to his original request. By failing to consider its section 16 obligations in relation to objectively in
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Sefton Council
12 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about the first responders of returned trafficking victims. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
12 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a particular parking tribunal hearing. The London Borough of Barnet had failed to respond to the request at the date of this notice as it was still considering where the balance of the public interest lay. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough has failed to complete its public interest considerations within a reasonable timeframe and has thus breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Barnet Council
12 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to her belief that the Mayor failed to register a pecuniary interest within 28 days of being elected. Copeland Borough Council (the Council) refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA, on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the decision to refuse the request for information and it is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA with regard to the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
12 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to offending behaviour programmes. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information but denied holding the remainder. The complainant disputed the amount of information provided. The Commissioner has determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ did not hold further information within the scope of the request. She therefore considers that the MoJ 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
11 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from The Axholme Academy (‘the Academy’) associated with its minibuses. He is dissatisfied because the Academy has categorised his request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA and has refused to comply with it. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s request is vexatious and the Academy is not obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require the Academy to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View THE AXHOLME ACADEMY
11 Nov 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a confidential report which was considered at a meeting of the full council. Chepstow Town Council release a redacted version of the report but not its enclosures. It claimed that releasing the remaining information would prejudice the commercial interests of third parties and could constitute an actionable breach of confidence. It thus relied on sections 41(1) and 43(2) of the FOIA to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that either exemption applies and is thus not entitled to rely on those exemptions. However, she considers that there is personal data within the information which would otherwise be disclosed and she has thus applied sections 40(1) and 40(2) proactively to prevent release of this information into the public domain. The Commissioner also considers that the Council breached both section 17 and section 10 of the FOIA in the way it responded to the request. The Commissioner
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 41; FOI 43
11 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request for the schedule of rates for damage repairs. The Transport for London (TfL) refused the request under the section 43(2) (commercial interests) exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) was correctly applied and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Transport for London
11 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the proposed redevelopment of a car park. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Bromley has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Bromley Council
8 Nov 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of fire risk assessments carried out on a particular building. The London Borough of Waltham Forest provided copies of assessments that it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough holds no further information beyond that already disclosed and has therefore discharged its duty under section 1(1) of the FOIA. However, it failed to discharge this duty within 20 working days and thus breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Waltham Forest Council
8 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a final decision to a complaint. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) refused the request under section 40(2) and section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA on the basis that the requested information is prohibited from disclosure under section 11(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioners Act (PCA) 1967[1].
The Commissioner does not require the PHSO to take any further steps.
[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/13/contents
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
8 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request about the cost of the review of over 75 funding. The BBC refused the request under the section 43(2) (commercial interests) exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) was correctly applied and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View BBC
7 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of minutes for the Wales Interpretation and Translation Service for the public sector (WITS) for a specified time period. Cardiff Council provided redacted copies of the minutes and cited section 40(2) and section 43(2) of the FOIA in respect of the redacted information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cardiff Council was not entitled to rely on either section 40(2) or section 43(2) in respect of the information it has redacted in the minutes.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
View Cardiff Council
7 Nov 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested certain information held by Gloucestershire County Council (the council) relating to the management of parking services in the Gloucestershire area. Whilst the council provided the complainant with some information in response, it applied section 14(2) and section 43(2) of the FOIA to part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to have applied section 14(2) to any part of the complainant’s request. However, she is satisfied that section 43(2) is engaged, and that the council is not obliged to provide any further information in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(2); FOI 43(2)
View Gloucestershire County Council
7 Nov 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the International Academy of Greenwich (IAG) relating to compliance with its funding agreement. The Commissioner has determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the IAG does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. She therefore considers that the IAG has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. However, she finds that it contravened its obligations under section 10 of the FOIA in failing to respond in a timely manner in accordance with the legislation. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
7 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) about cost-benefit analyses of the municipal waste management strategy in the Borough. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of a response it provided within 40 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner also decides that the Council breached Regulation 14 of the EIR in that it: failed to specify precisely the reasons for not providing the requested information, including citing an exception; failed to consider the public interest test in its refusal to disclose the requested information; failed to inform the complainant of their right to make representations to the public authority under Regulation 11 of the EIR; and failed to inform the complainant of the enforcement and appeal provisions of the Act applied by Regulation 18.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 14
View Southwark Council
7 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the redaction policy. The General Dental Council (GDC) refused the request under section 31(1)(g) with subsection (2)(d) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GDC has demonstrated that section 31(1)(g) with 31(2)(d) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View General Dental Council
7 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested records about the appointment of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (“IRTL”) from the Home Office (“HO”). The HO disclosed some information but refused to provide the remainder citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35 is not engaged. She requires the HO to disclose the requested information. Information Tribunal Appeal EA/2019/0470 Under Appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
7 Nov 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) regarding its use of properties in particular boroughs in Essex. The Council refused the request, citing section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12 to the request and has also provided adequate advice and assistance in line with section 16. However, as the Council provided a refusal notice more than 20 working days after the date of receipt of the request, it has breached sections 10(1) and 17(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken by the Council.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12; FOI 17(5)
View Southwark Council
7 Nov 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the papers relating to Lord Denning’s Profumo Report which were being transferred to The National Archives. Specifically the complainant asked for all records of discussions from 1 January 2014 relating to whether such papers should be made public and when. The Advisory Council on National Records and Archives (the advisory council) disclosed some information to the complainant at the internal review stage but refused to disclose the remainder citing sections 23, 27 and 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the advisory council is entitled to withhold the remaining withheld information under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exemption. She has however found the advisory council in breach of section 10 of the FOIA in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36
View The Advisory Council on National Records and Archives
6 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the trust) to disclose information relating to the number of Flowtron Boots in working order and purchased at certain dates in 2016. The trust disclosed the requested information but provided its response late. The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s information request within 20 working days of receipt. But as the information has now been supplied, she does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
6 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Council’s policies and procedures for assessing rehousing applications.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Camden (“the Council”) is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0447 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Camden Council
6 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Prince’s Consent in relation to a specific piece of legislation. The MoJ denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ did not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
6 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about the Maximum Authorised Number of officers for a particular transfer selection board and a promotion selection board for the years 2007 to 2015. The MOD provided some of the data for the date range requested but explained that data for some years was not held. The complainant disputed this arguing that the MOD would hold the data and furthermore that there were discrepancies in the data that had been released which led him to believe that the information provided to him was not accurate. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation of this complaint, the MOD undertook a verification exercise, as a result of which it located all of the information falling within the date range requested and provided this to the complainant. It was also able to confirm that such data should be considered to be the definitive version. The complainant accepts this but is dissatisfied with the length of ti
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Defence