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 upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to pre-application discussions about a specified address. Spelthorne Borough Council (the Council) ultimately refused to provide the requested information under the exception provided by regulation 12(5)(f) (the interests of the information provider) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(f) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Spelthorne Borough Council
5 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Oxford City Council (“the Council”) relating to contracts for the provision of day services. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
The Council must issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Oxford City Council
5 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested anonymised information about possible drug use by a murderer, from Hampshire Constabulary (“HC”). HC advised the complainant that it held no recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that HC does hold some information which falls within the scope of the request. In failing to disclose this information to the complainant, HC has breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires HC to disclose a copy of the form G15M with any personal information redacted.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
5 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to pre-application planning advice. Harrogate Borough Council withheld the information by way of the exception at EIR 12(5)(f) - interests of the information provider. The Commissioner’s decision is that Harrogate Borough Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(f) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information to the complainant. 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: EIR 12(5)(f)
5 Nov 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Kirklees Metropolitan Council (“the Council”) information in relation to fly tipping on a public footpath. The Council provided the information it considered to be held within the scope of the request. However, it decided to redact parts of the information disclosed citing regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council on balance of probabilities held no further information to what was already disclosed and the Council was correct to redact parts of the information provided in compliance with regulation 13 of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(3)
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
5 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an audio recording of a committee meeting. Boroughbridge Town Council (“the Council”) refused to provide the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to issue an adequate refusal notice. It has thus not complied with its duty on section 1(1) of the FOIA and has breached section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: either provide the complainant with a copy of the requested information or issue a refusal notice which complies with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17
5 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to prosecutions for nuisance caused by excessive motorcycle noise over a three year period. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) confirmed it held information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it, ultimately citing both sections 32 (court records) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner first considered whether the request should have been handled under the EIR and concluded that FOIA was the correct regime. She has investigated the MOJ’s application of section 32(1)(c)(ii) and section 40(2) and concluded that the MOJ was not entitled to rely on either exemption to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner, therefore, requires the MOJ to disclose the requested information within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
4 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint they have raised about a specific Councillor. Gedling Borough Council (“the Council”) disclosed some information in response to the request but redacted the majority of the information because it considered that the information within scope was the personal data of third parties and that disclosure wold breach the GDPR principles.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, as the information concerns events involving the complainant which led to them raising the complaint, all of the information falling within the scope of the request is in fact the complainant’s own personal data. She has therefore applied section 40(1) of the FOIA proactively to prevent disclosure of the withheld information.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Gedling Borough Council
4 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the qualifications obtained by a member of staff at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
4 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to how much debt the UK owes to foreign governments including foreign sovereign entities. The public authority concluded that it did not hold any information matching the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner accepted that on the balance of probabilities the public authority does not hold the information requested by the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View HM Treasury
4 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the FCO seeking information about US border controls. The FCO provided the complainant with a substantive response to that request, albeit nearly a year later, and sought to withhold the information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of a number of exemptions. During the FCO’s processing of that request, the complainant submitted a ‘meta-request’ seeking internal email correspondence regarding the processing of his original request. The FCO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of this meta-request but explained that it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27 (international relations) of FOIA and it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test. To date, the FCO has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations in relation to the meta-request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
4 Nov 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a particular box junction. The London Borough of Barnet denied holding some of the requested information and refused to provide the remainder as it estimated that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and therefore the London Borough is entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse the request. However, she also finds that the London Borough’s advice and assistance has not complied with its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help her refine her request to within the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Barnet Council
1 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a particular planning application. Carmarthenshire County Council does not hold the requested information but failed to issue a refusal notice stating this within the statutory time for compliance. Therefore the Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to comply with regulation 14(2) of the EIR. Since the Council has now issued a substantive response the Commissioner does not require any remedial steps to be taken in respect of this particular request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14
View Carmarthenshire County Council
1 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about penalties levied in relation to transactions involving a specific company. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) refused to confirm or deny holding information within the scope of the request as it argued that to do so would breach another piece of legislation. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC 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
1 Nov 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested raw data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), an executive agency sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Government, relating to trap-side testing carried out on badgers suspected of carrying the bovine tuberculosis virus. APHA withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR – materials in the course of completion, unfinished documents and incomplete data. APHA also stated that no information was held in relation part 8 of the request, as defined in this notice.The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception at regulation 12(4)(d) is not engaged. With regard to question 8, having reconsidered this, the Commissioner is satisfied that it was not a request for recorded information as defined in regulation 2(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires APHA to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the information requested in parts 2, 3, and 4 of the request, as
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 5(1)
View Animal and Plant Health Agency
1 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a 14-part request for a range of information about the awarding of an IT contract. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council responded to 13 of those parts, but refused to respond to the remaining part because it did not consider that part of the request to be valid. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was valid, but it was unclear. The Council was therefore under a duty to seek clarification but did not discharge that duty. The Commissioner therefore considers that the Council has breached its section 16 duty to provide advice and assistance when responding to this request. The Council also provided its response after the 20 working day deadline and thus breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: contact the complainant to seek clarification of his request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 8
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
1 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from University of Leicester (“the University”) about external examiners for the department of engineering between the years 2010 to 2018. The University withheld the information, citing section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner therefore does not require the University to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View The University of Leicester
1 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information regarding David Bowie and any honours nominations that he received. The Cabinet Office provided some details regarding the nomination for a CBE that Mr Bowie received in 2000, but withheld the remainder of the information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 37(1)(b) (honours), 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 37(1)(b) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
1 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about members’ registers of interests. Snowdonia National Park Authority (‘the Authority’) withheld the information requested under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Authority has incorrectly applied section 40(2) to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information requested to the complainant, namely previous copies of the members’ registers of interests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Snowdonia National Park Authority
1 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of Licensing officers with speeding offences. North Lincolnshire Council denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information and has therefore complied with its duties under section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View North Lincolnshire Council
1 Nov 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about complaints in respect of a specified property over a defined period of time. Canterbury City Council withheld the information because it considered that the information within scope was the personal data of third parties and that disclosure would breach the GDPR principles. The Commissioner’s decision is that, as the complainant and his family have either owned or occupied the land in question during the time period specified, all the information falling within the scope of the request is in fact the complainant’s own personal data. She has therefore applied Regulation 5(3) of the EIR proactively to prevent disclosure. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken under the EIR. Information Tribunal Appeal EA/2019/0437 Under Appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 5(3)
View Canterbury City Council
1 Nov 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report into the University of London’s handling of a student protest which involved the occupation of the university buildings. The University refused the request under section 36 on the basis that disclosing the information would prejudice the conduct of public affairs by inhibiting the free and frank exchange of views. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36 can only be relied on to withhold a limited amount of the information in the report. The Commissioner requires the public authority To disclose the remaining information from the report. The Commissioner has produced a confidential annex which identifies the information that can be withheld. This will be made available exclusively to the University. The University is required to disclose all the information from the report, apart from that identified in the annex.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View London
1 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Craven District Council (“the Council”) relating to a public consultation on waste collection. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
The Council must issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Craven District Council
1 Nov 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Upper Tribunal procedures. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
1 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complaints submitted to the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) about a specific housing organisation. HOS is relying on section 40(2) of the FOIA (third person personal data) to withhold the information the complainant has requested. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: HOS is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. It is the personal data of third persons and disclosure would contravene a data protection principle. The Commissioner does not require HOS to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal EA/2019/0413 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Housing Ombudsman
1 Nov 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence seeking access to fax cover sheet sent to the Veterans Welfare Service regarding a claim for payment following the death in service of the complainant’s son. The MOD provided the complainant with a redacted version of the document in question but sought to withhold the redacted information on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0433 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Defence
31 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications between two specific individuals and other parties and bodies, about two nursing homes. NHS Nene Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) released some information, having redacted the personal data from it under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The CCG withheld other information under section 21(1) of the FOIA as it considers this information is already accessible to the complainant by other means. The complainant is not satisfied with the CCG’s reliance on section 21(1) with regard to some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The CCG breached section 1(1), section 10(1) and section 17(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1) or provide a refusal notice within 20 working days. The CCG can rely on section 21(1) to withhold some of the information the complainant has requested as it accessible to him by other means. The Commissioner does not requires the CCG to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 21
31 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the minutes of a meeting that took place on 20 June 2018 between Michael Gove and the Institute of Economic Affairs (“IEA”) to discuss UK trade and industry. The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (“Defra”) refused to provide the information citing sections 35(1)(a), 27(1)(d), 29(1)(a), and section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra is entitled to withhold the requested information in reliance on section 35(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require Defra to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
31 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Warwick District Council (“the Council”) information in relation to noise nuisance complaints submitted to the Council. The Council responded by providing some information and cited regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR as the basis for refusal claiming that complying with the remaining parts of the request would exceed the costs limit.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided all the information it held within the scope of questions 6 and 10 and it was correct when it applied the exemption provided under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR in relation to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9.The Commissioner also found that the Council has complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance as required by regulation 9 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(1); EIR 9
View Warwick District Council
31 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the number of taxi driver licences revoked or suspended due to depression, anxiety or any other mental health condition. TfL refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL was correct to apply section 12 FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner also considers that TfL provided the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Transport for London
31 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested records of a fire from Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service (DSFRS). DSFRS provided some information but withheld the reminder, citing sections 40(2) (personal information), 31(1) (investigations and proceedings) and 36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it withdrew reliance on section 31(1) instead relying on section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The complainant also disputed that the information he had been provided with was accurate and complete. The Commissioner’s decision is that DSFRS has correctly applied the provisions of sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA and she finds that the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. She also finds that DSFRS was entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA and that it has complied with section 1 of the FOIA. No steps are required. Information Tribunal EA/2019/0432 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service
30 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested summary information from all RIDDOR reports made in Scotland in the last two financial years. The Health and Safety Executive refused the request as it estimated that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that HSE’s estimate of the cost of complying with the request is not reasonable as it includes impermissible activities. HSE is therefore not entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires HSE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, to the request, which does not rely on section 12 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Health and Safety Executive
30 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Norwich Clinical Commissioning Group (NCCG) regarding NHS pay banding for a specific NCCG role. NCCG refused to disclose the information citing section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that NCCG was not correct to apply section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• To disclose the NHS pay banding for NCCG’s role of Governance & Operations Manager / Data Protection Officer.
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 40
30 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the number of Judges caught in a sweep of the judicial internet. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing section 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ cited section 44(2) incorrectly. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: confirm or deny whether it holds the information requested by the complainant. In relation to any information that is held, this should either be disclosed or the complainant should be provided with a notice setting out the grounds under the FOIA for refusing to disclose this information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Ministry of Justice
30 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested consultation responses received by the council regarding its Cheltenham Transport Plan Phase 4 - Boots Corner. The council refused the request on the basis that section 22(1) of the Freedom of information Act applied. It continued to rely upon this after its review. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation however it applied Regulation 12(4)(d) (unfinished or incomplete information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(d) to withhold the information from disclosure. She has also decided that the council failed to comply with the requirements of Regulation 14(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To issue a fresh response to the complaint under the EIR, without relying upon Regulation 12(4)(d) to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Gloucester City Council
30 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the closed extract listed as PREM 11/32/1 held by the National Archives (TNA). TNA withheld the information, citing section S40(2) and section 41(1) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 41(1) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View The National Archives
30 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all information relating to a range of works undertaken at Sandbach Leisure Centre. Cheshire East Council refused to comply with the request under section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to apply section 14(1). However, in applying section 14(1) outside the time for compliance, the Council breached section 17(1). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17
View Cheshire East Council
30 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to pre-planning application advice provided by the council to a developer. The council provided the advice it holds, however the complainant believes that the council holds planning officer notes which have not been disclosed to him. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information. Regulation 12(4)(a) therefore applies. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Watford Borough Council
30 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested full disclosure of a report to Teignmouth Town Council of an investigation carried out at its request and which the council had already disclosed in redacted form. The Commissioner’s decision is that Teignmouth Town Council acted correctly in relying on the section 40(2) FOIA (Personal information) exemption to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner does not require Teignmouth Town Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
29 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of students who achieved particular grades in a particular subject, when taught by particular teachers across five years. Caistor Grammar School (‘the School’) initially categorised the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The School subsequently complied with the request, indicating that it does not hold some of the requested information and that information it does hold is exempt information under section 40(2)(personal data) and section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), with the public interest favouring maintaining the section 36 exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The School does not hold some of the information that the complainant has requested but it breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) of the FOIA because it did not communicate this fact to the complainant within 20 working days. The relevant information that the School holds is exempt from disclosure under
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View CAISTOR GRAMMAR SCHOOL
28 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various statistics relating to households housed by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (“the Council”) in bed and breakfast hotels. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
28 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an inspection report for a named kennels. Pendle Borough Council (the council) refused the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considered it to be third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) of the FOIA is engaged to the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Pendle Borough Council
28 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various statistics relating to households housed by Castle Point Borough Council (“the Council”) in bed and breakfast hotels. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Castle Point Borough Council
28 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various statistics relating to households housed by Canterbury City Council (“the Council”) in bed and breakfast hotels. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Canterbury City Council
28 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various statistics relating to households housed by Breckland Council (“the Council”) in bed and breakfast hotels. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Breckland Council
28 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a planning permission decision notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council has located all the information held in scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
25 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information specific to the ethnic and religious background of the Chief Executive, Chief Ombudsman and any other Legal Ombudsman staff involved in the decision of their complaint.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information constitutes personal data and that its release would clearly contravene the data protection principles. She therefore considers the Legal Ombudsman (“the Ombudsman”) is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the information.
The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0442 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View The Legal Ombudsman
25 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on a Super Civil Anti-Trespass Injunction from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS 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 MPS to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
25 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a court order. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) 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 MOJ to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice