25 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about appeals relating to Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). Manchester City Council required him to clarify elements of his original request (Request 1) but has failed to provide a response to the clarified request (Request 2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to discharge its duties under section 1(1) of the FOIA in respect of Request 2 and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the Act in the way it responded to that request. She also considers that the refusal notice which the Council issued in relation to Request 1 did not comply with section 17(5) of the FOIA and so the Council has also breached this section of the Act. Finally, the Commissioner does not consider that the Council provided the complainant with adequate advice and assistance in relation to Request 1 and so breached its section 16 duty. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a subs
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Manchester City Council
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
25 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various correspondence between officers from Wrexham County Borough Council and officers from the Welsh Language Commissioner. Wrexham County Borough Council refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wrexham County Borough Council was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Wrexham County Borough Council
25 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for part of the A14 road upgrade project. Highways England refused the request under regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the information in the CEMP is information on emissions and therefore regulation 12(9) of the EIR prevents the information being withheld under regulation 12(5)(e). For the remaining information in the CEMP the Commissioner finds that the regulation 12(5)(e) exception has been correctly applied and the public interest favours withholding the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information in the CEMP identified as being directly on emissions – namely the following sections: Section 5 Air Quality Management and Section 6 Noise and Vibration Management.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View National Highways
24 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Bristol City Council (“the Council”) regarding the Cumberland Basin Feasibility Report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR - Material in the course of completion, unfinished documents and incomplete data. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Bristol City Council
24 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Sheffield City Council, information relating to a limited company’s rateable occupation of a particular property. Sheffield City Council refused the request, citing the exemption at section 31 (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sheffield City Council was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(c) of the FOIA to refuse to disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Sheffield City Council
24 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant, a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of two clients, has requested information associated with the ICO’s decision to publish particular information in her report: ‘Investigation into the use of data analytics in political campaigns’. The ICO released some information having redacted some of it under sections 31(1)(g)(law enforcement) and 40(2)(personal data) of the FOIA. It withheld other information under 42(1)(legal professional privilege). The ICO redacted other information which it considers falls out of scope of the request. The complainant is dissatisfied with the ICO’s reliance on the section 31 and 42 exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The ICO is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA by virtue of subsections 31(2)(a) and 31(2)(c) to redact the information to which it has applied this exemption. The public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The ICO is entitled to rely on section 42(1) of the FOIA to withhold the info
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 42
View Information Commissioner
24 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a tribunal hearing. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to comply with section 1(1) within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken in respect of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
24 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by City of York Council (the council) about York City Football Club and its contribution to the funding of a new community stadium. The council disclosed some information in response to the complainant’s request and then, during the Commissioner’s investigation, confirmed that a small amount of additional information could be released. The council applied regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR-confidentiality of commercial or industrial information, to the remainder of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that whilst the council was correct to have considered parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the request under the EIR, it should have considered part 6 of the request under the FOIA. The Commissioner is also satisfied that, with the exception of some information requested at part 2 of the request, the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, and section 43(2) of the FOIA, when withholding that information identified as be
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); FOI 43(2)
View York City Council
24 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about recorded blackmail crimes in 2017/18 and 2018/19. 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
23 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about adherence to various NHS Codes of Conduct. NHS Bromley Clinical Commissioning Group refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the CCG was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. However, she also finds that the CCG failed to issue a refusal notice citing section 14(1) within 20 working days and thus breached section 17(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0430 disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17(5)
23 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to physical assaults on staff. The Barts Health NHS Trust (the Trust) refused to provide some of 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. 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 Barts Health NHS Trust
23 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department for Transport to disclose the correspondence it holds relating to Crossrail Ltd between, Mr Chris Grayling, and Ms Bernadette Kelly and Transport for London (TfL) between 1 February 2018 and 1 November 2018. The DfT advised the complainant that it does not hold any recorded information of the nature specified between the Secretary of State and TfL. It confirmed that it does hold correspondence between Ms Kelly and TfL. The DfT released some of this information to the complainant but withheld the remainder, citing sections 40, 41 and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT is entitled to rely on sections 40, 41 and 43 of the FOIA in this case. She therefore does not
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43
View Department for Transport
23 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of correspondence and communications between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and The Queen and or Prince Philip in relation to The Royal Yacht Britannia. The public authority confirmed that it did not hold any environmental information within the scope of the request. Relying on section 37(2) FOIA, the public authority neither confirmed nor denied holding any other information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner found that the public authority was entitled to conclude that it did not hold any environmental information within the scope of the request and to additionally rely on the exemption at section 37(2) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); FOI 37(2)
View HM Treasury
22 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant made 19 separate requests to the Crown Commercial Services, an executive agency of the Cabinet Office, for MISO data on a variety of subjects. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(3) of the FOIA by failing to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Cabinet Office
22 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from University of London (the University), information relating to the University’s additional security provision during a specific time period. The University refused the request under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly cited section 43(2) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View London
21 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the email address of the Independent Case Examiner. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has withheld this information on the basis of section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps in relation to this request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0472 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for Work and Pensions
21 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the BBC relating to cancellations of TV licences. The BBC disclosed some of the requested information, but refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 22 (information intended for future publication) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has correctly applied the above exemption to the withheld information and therefore she requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View BBC
21 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Worcester City Council (‘the Council’) relating to land used for a development. 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 public authority 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 Worcester City Council
21 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Adur & Worthing Councils’ (the Council) acquisition of two buildings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 43(2) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
21 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Public Health Agency (‘PHA’) in relation to a planning application for a pig farm. The PHA disclosed some of the requested information and stated that it did not hold the remainder.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHA has correctly relied upon regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR in that it holds no further information within the scope of the complainant’s request apart from that which it has already disclosed to the complainant. Therefore, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Public Health Wales NHS Trust
21 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Summary wording for website: The complainant has requested a variety of information concerning a particular planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”).
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
18 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested to know the person or persons who submitted a listing application for a specific property. Historic England has refused to supply the requested information in reliance on Regulation 12(3) and 13(1) (third party personal data) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Historic England is entitled to withhold the information requested by the complainant in reliance on Regulation 12(3) and 13(1) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require Historic England to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Historic England
18 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the documents contained within a specific archived file. The National Archives withheld the requested information as it claimed that the information was the personal data of a third party and that disclosure would contravene the General Data Protection Regulation principles. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The National Archives
18 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the “Underbelly” theatre company’s application for the use of land at Marble Arch in 2017. The Commissioner’s decision is that Westminster City Council (“the Council”) appropriately applied regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold one element of the request. The Commissioner finds the Council in breach of regulation 11(4) for the failure to provide the complainant with its reconsideration within 40 working days.The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Imfomation Tribunal EA/2019/0434 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Westminster Council
18 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted requests to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of an absence management policy for a particular part of the organisation. Following receipt of his first request the MOD asked the complainant to clarify the nature of information being sought. The complainant provided this clarification but argued that such a clarification was not necessary. The Commissioner has concluded that the MOD was correct to seek clarification of the request and was not under not an obligation to respond to it. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the MOD breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide all of the information falling within the scope of the clarified request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Defence
18 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding an explosion at a power plant. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under regulations 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE has correctly applied the provisions of regulation 12(5)(b) to all the information in scope of the request and the public interest favours maintaining the exception and withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Health and Safety Executive
18 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a complaint that was made to the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (YDNPA) regarding the siting of a domestic oil tank. The YDNPA initially withheld all the information captured by the request under the exceptions provided by regulation 12(5)(d) – confidentiality of proceedings, and regulation 12(5)(f) – voluntary supply of information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the YDNPA disclosed a significant proportion of the information and explained that some of the remaining information consisted of correspondence between itself and the complainant (i.e. the person making the request and subsequent complaint about the handling of his request). The complainant has confirmed that he is not interested in accessing copies of his own correspondence. The other information which the YDNPA continued to withhold comprises of correspondence between itself and the informant, (i.e. the individual who complained about the sitin
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority
17 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on Sussex Police’s complaint procedure policy and details of bodycam footage. Sussex Police has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to provide a response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sussex Police
17 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence regarding the commissioning of the speed limit on a particular road from Cheshire East Council (“the Council”). The Council stated that it has provided everything it held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request had more than one objective reading and therefore the Council was under a duty to clarify what the requestor was seeking. The Commissioner therefore finds that the Council has breached regulation 9 of the EIR by not providing adequate advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response that is compliant with the EIR with reference to the clarified scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 9
View Cheshire East Council
16 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information
regarding the issuing of European Union flags to the audience for the broadcast
of Last Night of the Proms. The BBC said that the requested information was
covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s
decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of
‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall within the scope of FOIA. She
therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken
in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
16 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with a named doctor. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third person personal data) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: CQC is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. It is the personal data of a third person and disclosure would contravene a data protection principle. The Commissioner does not require CQC to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View CQC
16 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) information associated with any due diligence it carried out on a particular developer. The Trust initially said it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. It subsequently accepted that it holds some information that is broadly relevant. The Trust has confirmed that it will release some of the information but that the remainder is exempt information under section 41 of the FOIA (information provided in confidence) and section 43(2)(commercial interests), with the public interest favouring maintaining the latter exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The requested information is environmental information which should be handled under the EIR. The Trust can rely on the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (commercial information) to withhold the information that falls within the scope of part 2 of the request. The public interest fa
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5
View East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust
16 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on a continuing care review report. The West Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) disclosed information during the Commissioner’s investigation and confirmed that it did not hold any further information. The complainant considered that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the CCG does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the CCG to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0428 dismissed. Information Tribunal EA/2019/0430 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
15 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Darlington Borough Council (“the Council”) about home education and the education of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA, since it did not respond to the request within the statutory time limit of 20 working days. Since a response has now been issued, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Darlington Borough Council
15 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between Tony Blair and the then Attorney General regarding Extraordinary Rendition. The Cabinet Office refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it would exceed the cost of compliance to do so (section 12). It failed to conduct an internal review despite the complainant requesting one. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 12(2) as its basis for refusing to comply with the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Cabinet Office
15 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the adoption of a private road into the public highway. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, City of York Council has located all the information held in scope of the request. However it breached Regulation 5(2) in failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0445 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View York City Council
15 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a grant provided to a specific firm. The Welsh Government relied on section 43 (commercial interests) and section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold one document, but that it has failed to demonstrate why section 43(2) is engaged and is thus not entitled to rely on that exemption to withhold information. The Commissioner requires the Welsh Government to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, documents 1, 2 and 3. It may redact the signatures, phone numbers and email addresses contained therein.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 43
View Welsh Government
15 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the awarding of EU structural funding. Caerphilly County Borough Council provided some information but refused the remainder of the request because it estimated that the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has demonstrated that complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and therefore the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. However, the Commissioner also finds that the Council failed to issue a refusal notice, citing section 12, within 20 working days and thus breached section 17(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 17
View Caerphilly County Borough Council
15 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a current list of the full names of Magistrates who are currently members of a named Bench. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice is not entitled to cite section 40(2) (Personal information) FOIA. The Commissioner therefore requires the Ministry of Justice to disclose to the complainant the full names of the Magistrates who, at the date of the information request, were members of the named Bench. The public authority must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal EA/2019/0426 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
15 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between Tony Blair and Jack Straw regarding Extraordinary Rendition. The Cabinet Office refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it would exceed the cost of compliance to do so (section 12). It failed to conduct an internal review despite the complainant requesting one. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 12(2) as its basis for refusing to comply with the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Cabinet Office
15 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding the sale of Mill House on Wimbledon Common. The Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators (WPCC) refused to provide the information because, although WPCC is a public authority for the purposes of the EIR, the requested information is not environmental. The Commissioner’s decision is that the majority of the information within the scope of the request is not environmental and, therefore, there is no obligation on WPCC to provide this information to the complainant under the EIR. However, the Commissioner has identified a small amount of environmental information. In respect of this information, the Commissioner requires WPCC to either make this information available to the complainant or provide a valid refusal notice setting out its reasons for refusing to do so. 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 certi
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)
15 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of all communications between the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) and Boris Johnson concerning his appointment as columnist at The Telegraph. ACOBA withheld the requested information under sections 36(2)(b) and (c) and 40(2) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 36 of the FOIA and that the balance of the public interest supports maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
15 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) seeking correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. DFID confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but it refused to disclose this on the basis of section 37(1)(ac) (communications with the Royal Family), section 40(2) (personal data) and section 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)(ac) and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Department for International Development
14 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to a complaints process. The Housing Ombudsman (the public authority) provided its response, outside the required 20 working day timeframe, following the receipt of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As the public authority has responded, the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Housing Ombudsman
14 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested an environmental records search. Leicester County Council advised of its standard charge raised for such requests in accordance with regulation 8 of the EIR (charging for environmental information). The complainant accepted the charge and commissioned the report but subsequently complained to the Commissioner that the charging was excessive. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leicestershire County Council’s has complied with regulation 8 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 8(1)
View Leicestershire County Council
14 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking the number of British nationals assisted by the FCO with any sexual crimes in various Caribbean countries. For each incident, the complainant also sought the date it took place, the nature of the incident, the specific location of the incident (eg inside a resort), as well as the age and sex of each victim. The FCO directed the complainant to online data it had published about the number of individuals it had assisted in 2018. However, it argued that the remaining information falling within the scope of his request was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold this information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
14 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) relating to the cost of major works at a particular address. The Council stated that it had disclosed all the information it held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has failed to provide all the information it held within the scope of the request and has therefore failed to discharge its duty under regulation 5(1) of the EIR. Also, as the Council failed to provide all the information it held within the scope of the request after 20 working days of receipt of the request, failed to provide adequate advice and assistance, and failed to carry out an internal review within 40 working days of receipt of the internal review request, it has breached regulation 5(2), regulation 9 and regulation 11(4) of the EIR respectively. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislat
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 9
View London Borough of Lambeth
14 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning a proposed “growth area” for Balsall Common. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Midlands Combined Authority (“the Authority”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West Midlands Combined Authority
14 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the way the Cabinet Office had handled a previous request for information. The Cabinet Office failed to respond within the statutory time for compliance, therefore the Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office failed to comply with section 10(1) and section 17(1) of the FOIA. Since the Cabinet Office has now issued a substantive response the Commissioner does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View Cabinet Office