14 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with its data protection officer. Barbourne Health Centre (‘the Practice’) has released some information, having originally withheld some of it under section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal data). It withheld other information under section 41 (information provided in confidence). The complainant has confirmed to the Commissioner that he is not satisfied that the Practice has released all the information it holds with regard to part 3 of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Practice has now communicated to the complainant all the information it holds that falls within the scope of part 3 of the request. The Practice breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) because it did not communicate to the complainant all the information to which he was entitled within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Practice to take any remedial steps. Inform
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
14 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for a copy of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) information security policy. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, the PHSO has not provided a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the PHSO to provide the complainant with a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The Parliamentary and Health Service 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 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
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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a monetary penalty notice (MPN) issued to STS Commercial Ltd and information associated with STS Commercial’s appeal against the MPN. The ICO has withheld the relevant information it holds under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA (law enforcement), section 32(1)(a) (court records) and section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The ICO is entitled to withhold the requested MPN under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA by virtue of subsection 31(2)(c), and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Grounds of Appeal document that the ICO holds is exempt information under section 32(1)(a). The ICO is entitled to withhold the recorded discussions with its solicitors and its external counsel under section 42(1) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 32; FOI 42
View Information Commissioner
14 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Havering generated by a Village Green Application. London Borough of Havering relied on 12(4)(b) (Manifestly Unreasonable) . The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Havering has not persuaded her that 12(4) (b), is engaged The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Provide the complainant with information he has requested , however it is not to provide “excepted” information as defined by regulation 13 (personal data)
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Havering
14 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) seeking information about the investigation into Sir Craig Tunstall, formerly executive head teacher of the Gipsy Hill Federation. The Council confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View London Borough of Lambeth
14 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the timing of the publication of 21 contracts relating to “EU Exit”. 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
11 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for information relating to applicant households accommodated by the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council). The Council provided some information but relied on the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold other information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is not engaged in respect of the withheld information, since it is not personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 2018. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View London Borough of Lambeth
11 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests, the complainant has requested information associated with North East Ambulance Service’s ambulance provision on a specific date, its deployment of vehicles, particular targets and a policy. With regard to request 1, North East Ambulance Service (NEAS) provided some information and confirmed it does not hold some of the information. NEAS relied on section 12(1) (cost exceeds appropriate limit) to refuse to comply with elements of part 2 of request 1 and a second request the complainant subsequently submitted. NEAS considered some information requested in part 2 of request 1 is exempt information under section 24(1) (national security) and/or section 40(2)(personal data), with the public interest favouring maintaining the section 24 exemption. NEAS subsequently withdrew its reliance on section 12(1) with regard to the second request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: NEAS has now complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA with regard to request 2 but breached se
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 24; FOI 40
View North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
11 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two requests seeking specific minutes and related documents. Kirby Muxloe Parish Council disclosed some information, and withheld some under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold some of the information under section 40(2), but that other parts do not represent personal data and therefore do not fall under the exemption. The Commission is satisfied that all other relevant held information has been disclosed, but finds that the Council breached section 10(1) by not responding to the second request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 (on the second page) of the closed session minutes of the meeting held on 5 August 2016.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
11 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Education (“DfE”) relating to an audit which followed an investigation at a Birmingham primary school. The DfE refused the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, stating that compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE correctly refused the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, and complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16. The Commissioner does not require the DfE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Education
11 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked Birmingham City Council for information relating to a payment it made to the GMB Union. The Council provided the information held in respect of parts 1 and 4 of his request and provided a not held response in respect of part 3. The Council initially refused to provide information in respect of part 2 of the complainant’s request in reliance on section 40(2) of the FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the Council subsequently provided the information relevant to part 2 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA by providing the complainant with information it holds in respect of part 2 of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with the information he asked for in respect of all parts of his request and particularly in respect of part 2.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Birmingham City Council
11 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding numbers of complaints to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). The Department for Education (DfE) estimated that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the cost threshold but then released the information during the Commissioner’s investigation. The complainant remains dissatisfied with the length of time it took the DfE to comply with its duties under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE’s response to the complainant’s request of 11 October 2018 breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as the DfE did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The information has now been released and the Commissioner does not require the DfE to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Education
11 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on correspondence and minutes of meetings between Westminster City Council(“the Council”) and Pret a Manger (“Pret”) related to the issues raised by Real Bread Campaign’s (“the Campaign”) complaint. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council appropriately withheld some of the information in the scope of the request in reliance of section 41(1) – Information provided in confidence and some of the information in the scope of section 43(2) – Commercial interests. However, she finds that the public interest favours disclosure of some of the information withheld under section 43(2). The Commissioner also finds that these exemptions are not engaged in respect of some of the withheld information. The exemption at section 21 – Information accessible to the applicant by other means is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information as detailed in the Confidential Annex.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 41; FOI 43(2)
View Westminster Council
10 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on promotions, staff pay and grading and posts at the Department of Health and Social Care. The DHSC refused to respond to this request on the basis of section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14 does not apply to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department of Health and Social Care
10 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about its procurement of a new IT system from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS advised the complainant that it considered the request to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the MPS can refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1) of the FOIA. No steps are required. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2019/0408 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Metropolitan Police Service
10 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the national early years funding rates. The Department for Education (DfE) refused the request under section 35(1)(a) – information relating to the formulation and development of government policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the exemption is engaged, the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh that in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the DfE to disclose the withheld information. Information Tribunal EA/2019/0421 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Education
10 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Northern Ireland Co-Operation Overseas (‘NI-CO’) relating to training materials for a certain project. NI-CO refused the request, citing the exemptions set out in sections 27(1) and 43(2) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
The Commissioner’s decision is that NI-CO has correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request and so she did not go on to consider its application of section 27(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
10 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on allowances paid to staff at the Department of Health and Social Care. The DHSC refused to respond to this request on the basis of section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 has been correctly applied in this case and the DHSC does not need to take any further steps. The Commissioner also finds the DHSC has provided advice and assistance to meet its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department of Health and Social Care
10 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on allowances paid to staff at the Department of Health and Social Care. The DHSC refused to respond to this request on the basis of section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14 does not apply to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department of Health and Social Care
9 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a meeting held between Michael Gove and Sir Albert Bore in February 2014 regarding the ‘Trojan Horse’ letter. The Council withheld the information citing sections 30(2)(a) and (b) – information provided in confidence for the purpose of conducting investigations, and 40(2) – third party personal data, of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has incorrectly applied section 30(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information. She finds that section 40(2) can only be relied on for the personal data of administrative staff. She also finds that the Council breached sections 1 and 10 respectively of the FOIA by failing to identify all information falling within the scope of the request, and failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose all the information supplied by the Counci
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 30(2); FOI 40(2)
View Birmingham City Council
9 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to amendments to the Code of Practice issued under section 45 of the FOIA. The Cabinet Office claimed that it did not hold any information relevant to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does not hold the requested information. Accordingly no further steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
9 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information concerning the London Borough of Waltham Forest’s (“the Council’s”) “Vexatious Register”. 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 Waltham Forest Council
9 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Home Office, copies of any communications sent by a former Home Secretary which mention or refer to ‘Arron Banks’ or ‘Leave.EU’. The Home Office would neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information, citing the exemption at section 35(3) (formulation of government policy) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the exemption at section 35(3) of the FOIA is engaged, the public interest in favour of confirming or denying whether or not the Home Office holds the requested information is greater than the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and either disclose or issue a valid refusal notice in respect of any information identified.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
9 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested data on approval-related audits from the Department for Communities (NI) (“the Department”).The Commissioner’s decision is that Capita Business Services Ltd holds the requested information on behalf of the Department by virtue of section 3(2)(b) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the requested information or, in the alternative, a refusal notice explaining why it will not provide the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Department for Communities (Northern Ireland)
9 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a file about homosexual activity from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 30(1)(investigations and proceedings), 38(1) (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 30(1) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Metropolitan Police Service
9 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to know the number of bids the Home Office received when tendering for service providers to conduct Secure English Language Testing. The Home Office refused the request, on the grounds that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 43(2) to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Home Office
9 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a particular building. Leeds City Council provided some information but refused the remainder of the request as manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate, to her satisfaction, that the request would impose an unreasonable burden. She therefore finds that the Council is not entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council failed to disclose information within the scope of the request within 20 working days and failed to issue a refusal notice citing Regulation 12(4)(b) within 20 working days. She therefore finds that the Council breached Regulation 5(2) and 14(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to the request, under the EIR, which does not rely on the exception at Regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Leeds City Council
9 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a planning enforcement complaint relating to his property. Powys County Council (‘the Council’) stated that the information requested was exempt under section 41 of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council agreed that the correct access regime for the request was the EIR as opposed to the FOIA. The Council then sought to rely on regulations 12(5)(f) and 13 to withhold the information requested. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the information is exempt from disclosure under regulations 5(3) and 13(1) as it contains the personal data of the complainant and the personal data of third parties. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(3)
View Powys County Council
9 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested any minutes of meetings regarding a specific cavity wall insulation study. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive disclosed some information and withheld the remainder, citing regulation 12(4)(d) (Material in the course of completion) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has applied regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR appropriately.
The Commissioner does not require Northern Ireland Housing Executive to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Northern Ireland Housing Executive
8 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of guidance referred to in a Practice Direction. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) ultimately withheld the requested information on the basis of the exemption at section 23(1) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) of the FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information falls within the scope of this exemption and therefore the MoJ can rely on section 23(1) to withhold it. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Ministry of Defence
8 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of guidance referred to in a Practice Direction. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) ultimately withheld the requested information on the basis of the exemption at section 23(1) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) of the FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information falls within the scope of this exemption and therefore the MoJ can rely on section 23(1) to withhold it. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Ministry of Justice
8 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the final report of a review of Forest Holidays (owned by the Forestry Commission) from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra). Defra refused to provide the information withholding it under section 35(1)(a)(formulation or development of government policy). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) is not engaged in relation to the withheld information. The Commissioner has also found that Defra breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by not responding to the complainant within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information that was withheld under section 35 of the FOIA, with the exception of any third party personal data relating to junior employees. Information Tribunal EA/2019/0412 disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 35(1)(a)
8 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the Chief Executive of the council’s knowledge and advice in agreeing to sign a memorandum of understanding (an MOU) with the Ministry of Defence over St George’s Park, Rutland. The council provided a copy of the MOU but said that it does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities the council was correct to say that it does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. She has however decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 14(3) when refusing the initial requests for information. She has also decided that it did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 9(2). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14; EIR 9(2)
View Rutland County Council
8 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the wording of Road Traffic Orders. The London Borough of Hillingdon (the “Council”) refused to respond to the requests and cited section 14(1) (vexatious requests) as its basis for doing so. It waived the opportunity to conduct an internal review and directed the complainant to the Commissioner. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) as its basis for refusing to respond to the request although it did contravene its obligations under sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in failing to respond in a timely manner in accordance with the legislation. No steps are required. Information Tribunal EA/2019/0411 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Hillingdon Council
8 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested the Office of Government Commerce (‘OGC’) Gateway July 2017 Review on smart metering. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS correctly considered the request under the EIR and regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications, is engaged in respect of the withheld information. Nevertheless, she has decided that the public interest favours disclosure. BEIS also applied regulation 13(1)- personal data to some of the withheld information. The Commissioner finds that this regulation is engaged only in respect of some of the information withheld in reliance of regulation 13(1). The Commissioner finds BEIS in breach of regulation 11(4) for the failure to provide the complainant with its reconsideration within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose in full the Review of July 2017 with the exception of the names of junior staff/officials. Information Tribunal EA/2019/0415 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13(1)
View Department for Business and Trade
8 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the procurement and implementation of software to replace one of its systems from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to comply with the request saying that to do so would exceed the cost limit at section 12(1) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(1) was properly applied. She also finds no breach of section 16 (advice and assistance) of the FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Metropolitan Police Service
8 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the wording of Road Traffic Orders. The London Borough of Hillingdon (the “Council”) refused to respond to the requests and cited section 14(1) (vexatious requests) as its basis for doing so. It waived the opportunity to conduct an internal review and directed the complainant to the Commissioner. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) as its basis for refusing to respond to the request although it did contravene its obligations under sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in failing to respond in a timely manner in accordance with the legislation. No steps are required. Information Tribunal EA/2019/0411 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Hillingdon Council
7 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Cambridge University Press (‘the Press’) is the publishing business of the University of Cambridge. Although it is operationally separate from the Academic University – having its own executive board, HR, IT, legal and finance departments – it is not corporately separate from the University (eg a trading subsidiary). As such, although this decision notice is served on the Council of the University of Cambridge, it concerns the Press and the Press is discussed throughout. In a multi-part request, the third in a series, the complainant has requested information about particular publishing matters from the Press. The Press aggregated this request with the complainant’s second request and maintains that it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost exceeds appropriate limit). The Press did, however, volunteer some information that addressed some parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Press is entitled to aggregate the co
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
7 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the investigation report into a medical director. The Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust (the Trust) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA 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 40
View Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust
7 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the dispensing of Stiripentol. The NHS Business Services Authority (the NHSBSA) refused to provide some of the requested information citing the exemptions under section 40(2) (third party personal data) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NHSBSA has incorrectly applied section 40(2) and section 41(1) 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 columns B and C - the dispenser details where the total number of items fell below 5. 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. Inform
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View NHS Business Services Authority
7 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an investigation report and any other correspondence and documents relating to a Financial Notice to Improve and subsequent investigation into St Neots Learning Partnership. The Department for Education (DfE) considered this information exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(ii) and (c). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied the provisions of section 36(2)(b)(ii) to the information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
7 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the template information used by London Borough of Barnet (the Council) when responding to Parking Charge Notice (PCN) challenges. The Council disclosed the majority of the information held but withheld 6 paragraphs under section 31(1)(g). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) to withheld the information but has breached section 17 as it did not inform the complainant which exemption it was relying on when advising that it required further time to consider the public interest. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0369 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31
View Barnet Council
7 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the AEA Technology Pension Scheme (AEAT). The Commissioner’s decision is that Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has correctly applied section 44(1) of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require PHSO to take any steps to ensure as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
4 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various pieces of information relating to Llanelidan Village Green. Llanelidan Community Council (‘the Council’) refused the request under section 14(1) as it considered it to be 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 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
4 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Warwickshire County Council all emails, reports, photos and letters which relate to a visit by Warwickshire Trading Standards and the Animal and Plant Health Agency (“APHA”) to a named game bird farm on 27 July 2017. The Council has refused the complainant’s request in reliance on section 30(1)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Warwickshire County Council has correctly applied section 30(1)(a) of the FOIA to the information requested by the complainant. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information relates to investigations the public authority has the power to conduct and the public interest favours withholding that information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Warwickshire County Council
4 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a Public Confidence Risk Report. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) refused the request under section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs and 36(2)(b)(i) - would or would be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 36(2)(b)(i) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Financial Conduct Authority
4 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the experiences black and ethnic minority individuals face as a result of being in environments or being brought up or living in areas where mostly everyone is white. Initially, NHS England advised the complainant that it does not hold any recorded information. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation it accepted that it does hold recorded information of the nature specified in the request but considers the cost to comply would exceed the appropriate limit and therefore section 12 of the FOIA applies. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England is entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA in this case. She has however found NHS England in breach of section 1(1)(a), 10, 17(5) of the FOIA. She has also found NHS England in breach of section 16. This is because it claimed a later reliance on section 12, section 12 triggers a duty to provide advice and assistance and to date NHS England has not complied with this requiremen
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 17
View NHS England