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
3 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Staffordshire Police, information about civil claims submitted against it in respect of a murder case which resulted in wrongful convictions. Staffordshire Police disclosed information in respect of two named individuals, but it refused to disclose information about whether any other claims had been brought, citing the exemptions at section 40(2) (Personal information) and section 38(1) (Health and safety) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, under section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA, Staffordshire Police was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held information about any other claims.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Staffordshire Police
3 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about money paid by West Sussex County Council (“the Council”) to place children into secure care accommodation facilities in Scotland, broken down by care facility. The Council refused the request under section 40(2) of the FOIA, as it considered that the information it held comprised third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA, and she does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Sussex County Council
3 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Heywood South Link Road J19 M62 planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, Rochdale Borough 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.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
3 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested performance reports relating to the delivery and performance management of asylum accommodation. The Home Office ultimately provided some relevant information, but refused to provide the remainder citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has considered whether the request was interpreted correctly. She has also considered the Home Office’s application of section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that while the request was interpreted correctly, the Home Office applied the exemption provided by section 43(2) incorrectly. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information, a copy of which was provided to the Commissioner during the course of her investigation, (with appropriate redactions for personal data).
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Home Office
3 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of reports which were presented to an extraordinary meeting of Thanet District Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Panel on 15 October 2014. The Council originally refused the request under section 42(1)(legal professional privilege) of the FOIA, additionally applying section 44(1)(c)(prohibitions on disclosure – disclosure would constitute or be punishable as a contempt of court) at internal review. During the Commissioner’s subsequent investigation the Council applied section 14(1)(vexatious request) to refuse the request. The Commissioner has concluded that Thanet District Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1). The Commissioner however found that the public authority breached section 17(5) as it did not give the complainant an adequate refusal notice within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Thanet District Council
3 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the number of families rehoused from a smaller to a larger property. Slough Borough Council (the Council) ultimately provided the complainant with the requested information. The complainant disputed the amount of information provided. The Commissioner has determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold the further information within the scope of the request. She therefore considers that the Council complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0436 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Slough Borough Council
3 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of minutes and agendas which refers to correspondence with the Information Commissioner’s Office. Potto Parish Council refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the Parish Council was entitled section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. However, it 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
2 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested figures relating to human trafficking victims held in short-term holding facilities or prisons. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
2 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Norfolk County Council (the Council) regarding details provided for an investigation which related to a project to develop a waste incinerator in Norfolk. The Council provided information which contained some redactions in accordance with regulations 12(3) and 13(1) (third party personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply regulations 12(3) and 13(1) to withhold some of the information. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council did not comply with the requirements of regulation 5(2) as it disclosed some information beyond the statutory time limit. The Council also breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to provide its internal review response within the required 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal EA/2019/0419 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(3); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2)
View Norfolk County Council
2 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (“the Council”) regarding investigations into school placements over two academic years. The Council refused the request, stating that it did not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that it does not hold the requested information and as such, has failed to comply with section 1 of the FOIA. In addition, the Council did not engage sufficiently with the complainant to establish whether a refined request could be submitted, and therefore the Commissioner finds that the Council breached its section 16 duty to provide advice and assistance. The Council also failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the compla
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
2 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) about an incident in Salisbury on 4 March 2018. Having initially refused the two related requests in their entirety citing the exemption at section 30(1) (investigations and proceedings) of the FOIA, the MPS revised its position during the Commissioner’s investigation. In doing so, it refused to confirm or deny whether it holds some of the requested information, citing sections 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 30(1) and 30(3) of the FOIA are both engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining both exemptions. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0382 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Metropolitan Police Service
2 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested certain policies, procedures and standards information in a four-part request. The Ministry of Justice (the ’MOJ’) initially only responded to part three of the request for the reasons outlined in this notice, where it said it did not hold the requested information but provided some information at internal review “outside the FOIA” on a discretionary basis. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ responded to the remainder of the request in scope (parts two and four only). For part two of the request, it said it did not hold the requested information but provided some information outside the FOIA, again on a “discretionary” basis. For part four of the request, it provided some information with redactions made under section 43(2), commercial interests. By failing to provide a response to all parts of the request within the statutory time limit of 20 working days, the MOJ has breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 43
View Ministry of Justice
1 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding planning approval and enforcement action for a development. The Council supplied some information falling within the scope of the request but denied holding the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probability Fermanagh and Omagh District Council has supplied all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0398 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
1 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect the Welsh Government’s TrawsCyrmru bus network including a feasibility study into the introduction of a possible new TrawsCymru bus route in North Wales during the period 2016 to 2018. Wrexham County Borough Council initially refused to confirm or deny whether it held information in respect of item 12 but did not cite an exemption. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the Council confirmed that it was relying on section 43(2) to refuse the information in respect to item 12 and the complainant’s follow on questions to item 11. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wrexham County Borough Council has complied with its obligations in respect of section 1(1) of the FOIA in respect of item 11 of the original request but has breached section 1(1) in respect of the subsequent follow on questions. The Commissioner has also concluded that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 43(2) to refuse information in respect of it
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View Wrexham County Borough Council
1 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning Fermanagh and Omagh District Council’s enforcement actions regarding a planning development. The Council supplied information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Fermanagh and Omagh District Council has interpreted the request correctly, disclosing all relevant information and therefore complying with section 5(1) of the EIR. The Council is not required to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
1 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a specified car park. Although St Cleer Parish Council (‘the Council’) responded, it did not initially do so under FOIA. Once it provided its FOIA response, it gave the complainant some of the requested information and said that some of it was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held beyond that already provided. The Commissioner also considered whether the requested information constituted environmental information and should instead have been handled under the EIR; she finds that the Council was correct to apply FOIA to the request. However, by initially failing to recognise the request as valid under FOIA the Council has breached section 8 of FOIA. As the Council has now provided a response to all parts of the request under FOIA, the Commissioner does not require it to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 8
1 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Halton Borough Council (“the Council”) research data about the availability of housing. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0403 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Halton Council
1 Oct 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of job titles in the council where there is only one person carrying out the role. He also asked for information on job roles where there is no other person who carries out the job of deputy for that role. The council provided information on tiers one – three of its structure but refused to provide further information on the basis that the exemption in section 40(2) of the Act applied. As regards job titles where there is no deputy in place it refused the request on the basis that section 12 of the Act applied (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 12 to part 2 of the request, however it was not correct to apply section 40(2) to part 1. She has also decided that the council complied with section 16 of the Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the information falling within the scope of part 1 of the
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16; FOI 40(2)
View Cornwall Council
1 Oct 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence from Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific planning application. The Council withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR – material in the course of completion – and/or regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR – internal communications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the two exceptions are engaged; however, the balance of the public interest favours disclosure of the information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information, subject to paragraph 55 of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e)
View Nuneaton And Bedworth Borough Council
1 Oct 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about planning approval. Fermanagh and Omagh District Council supplied information held falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Fermanagh and Omagh District Council has supplied all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request, complying with section 5(1) of the EIR. No further steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0400 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
30 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Medway Council (“the Council”) regarding the costs for a court hearing and how many times, within a specific timeframe, did the Council fail to send adjournment notices. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the request under section 12(2) of the FOIA, and that it complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance in accordance with section 16(1). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Medway Council
30 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from City of York Council (“the Council”) a copy of the advice offered to councillors who sit on the planning committee regarding meeting members of the public. The Council considered the request to be manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to refuse the request as manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b), and that the balance of the public interest favours the exception being maintained. However, the Council breached the requirement, under regulation 14(2) of the EIR, to provide its refusal within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0365 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1)
View York City Council
30 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked the MHCLG for a submission for funding and the development plans made by the Old Oak and Royal Park Development Corporation to the Housing Infrastructure Fund. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG has correctly applied the provision of section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA to the information which the complainant has asked for.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
30 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a complaint to the General Medical Council (GMC). The GMC considered her complaint but refused to take any action. The request is for the evidence base for the GMC’s refusal to investigate her concerns. To the date of this notice, the GMC has not responded to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner has considered the request. She is satisfied that it is a valid request for information, which meets the requirements of section 8 of the FOIA. As the GMC has not to date responded to it, the Commissioner has found the GMC in breach of section 10 of the FOIA. She requires the GMC to issue a response to the complainant in accordance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 8
View GMC
30 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an external ‘lessons learned’ review into an Aligned Incentive Contract. NHS Vale of York Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) released a summary of the review report and has withheld the remainder of the report under section 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The CCG considers the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG can rely on section 36(2)(b) to withhold the remainder of the lessons learned review report, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the CCG to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
30 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The original applicant’s father has brought this complaint to the Commissioner with his son’s authority. The notice is served on the applicant/or son but much of the notice refers to the father, as the complainant. The complainant has requested information associated with Southern Water and the Water Industry Act. The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) has refused to comply with the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable request). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Defra is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) as the request is manifestly unreasonable by virtue of being vexatious. The public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Commissioner does not require Defra to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
30 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from NHS England the names and General Dental Council (GDC) numbers of registrants that were panel members involved in decisions made about a dentist following a complaint made about their practice. The complainant also asked NHS England to identify Dental Practice Advisors (DPAs) involved in the dentist’s supervision as a result of any other complaints it received in the 3 years leading up to the request. NHS England withheld the information under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the names and GDC numbers of the panel members. In regard to the identify of DPAs involved in the dentist’s supervision as a result of any other complaints in the 3 years leading up to the request, it is the Commissioner’s view that on a balance of probabilities it is unlikely that any information is held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View NHS England
30 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested access to a closed file. The National Archives (TNA) withheld the information on the basis of the exemptions at sections 37(1)(a) and (b), 27(1), 40(2) and 41(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA was entitled to withhold the information on the basis of the exemption at section 37(1)(a) - communications with or on behalf of the Sovereign. The Commissioner also finds that TNA breached section 10 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 37
View The National Archives
30 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a waste collection consultation. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough 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.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
30 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the usage of Beccles Common. Beccles Town Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the FOIA exemption for legal professional privilege (section 42). During the Commissioner’s investigation it reconsidered the request under the EIR and applied the exceptions for material in the course of completion (regulation 12(4)(d)), the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)) and protection of the environment (regulation 12(5)(g)) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Beccles Town Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1) but that it has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
30 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the University of Warwick (the university) to disclose information relating to the number of students who have submitted academic appeals from 2015 to 2019. To the date of writing the university has failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the university to respond to the request in accordance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The University of Warwick
30 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a seven part request about transport arrangements for children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disability. Worcestershire County Council denied that information was held in respect of parts 1, 2 and 4, and did not treat parts 3, 5 and 6 as being valid requests for information. The Council asked the complainant to provide clarification in respect of part 7. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows. In respect of parts 1, 2 and 4, no recorded information is held. In respect of parts 3, 5 and 6, these are not valid requests for information under the FOIA. In respect of part 7, the Council has failed to provide appropriate advice and assistance to enable the complainant to provide clarification, and as such breached section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: In respect of part 7, provide advice and assistance to the complainant to enable them to clarify wh
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Worcestershire County Council
30 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to looked-after children. Some information was provided but the remainder of the request was refused under section 12(1) of the FOIA because responding to it would have exceeded the cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wrexham County Borough Council (the “Council”) was entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request. However, she also finds that the Council failed to discharge its section 16 duty to provide adequate advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with advice and assistance to determine what, if any, information of interest within scope may be provided within the cost limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Wrexham County Borough Council
30 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested that the PHSO either confirm or deny whether it commissioned, received or recorded legal advice about the legal status of its review process from external lawyers. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (“PHSO”) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) as it considered the request to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
30 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a decision made at two Board of Governors meetings in July 2013. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lawrence Sheriff School (the School) was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0355 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
30 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a map from Hampshire County Council (“the Council”) showing the area covered by public highways in the Parish of Steep. The Council responded to advise that the information requested was already reasonably accessible and directed the complainant to where it could be found. Therefore it cited regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly applied regulation 6(1)(b). However, based on the balance of probabilities, the Commissioner finds that the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any further steps from the public authority.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Hampshire County Council
27 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information surrounding negotiations and decision regarding the sale of a parcel of land to a developer. The council applied section 14 to the request and argues that the request is vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that council has correctly applied section 14(1) to refuse to respond to the request further. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
27 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Damage to Crown Property (DCP) Rates for Areas 9 and 10 for a particular contract. HE confirmed that it did not hold the requested information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that on the balance of probabilities, there is no recorded information held by HE under section 1(1)(a) FOIA falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2019/0390 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View National Highways
27 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on Media Access Control addresses for London Tube stations from Transport for London (TfL). Having originally withheld the requested information under section 40 (personal data), TfL’s final position is that the requested information is exempt from release under section 43(2)(commercial interests) and section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure). TfL considers the public interest favours maintaining the section 43 exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information the complainant has requested is exempt information under section 43(2) of the FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require TfL to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Transport for London
27 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the University of Warwick (the university) to disclose information relating to the number of students who have submitted academic appeals from 2015 to 2019. To the date of writing the university has failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt. She requires the university to respond to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The University of Warwick
27 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about school places for children with an education, health and care (EHC) plan from Lancashire County Council (“the Council”). The Council stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold the requested information. She does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Lancashire County Council
27 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the Cabinet Office’s role in changes made to documents related to the Employment Support Allowance (ESA). 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
27 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking all communications sent and received by a particular special adviser relating to a newspaper article concerning the testing of a Trident missile. The MOD confirmed that it held information within the scope of the request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of qualified exemptions within FOIA and it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest. The MOD continued to extend the time it needed to consider the balance of the public interest before deciding to refuse this request on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA because of the burden of complying with it. The Commissioner has concluded that the MOD can refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1) but breached section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to issue a refusal stating this within 20 working days of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Ministry of Defence
26 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the qualifications of five members of staff. The governing body of Richmond and Hillcroft Adult Community College withheld the information, relying on section 40 of the FOIA (third party personal data) to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken in respect of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
26 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the engineer’s survey and investigation report from the Canal & River Trust (“CRT”) relating to the cause of the breach which occurred on 15 March 2018 between the Wardle Lock and Stanthorne Lock in Middlewich. The CRT withheld this information under Regulation 12(4)(d)(material still in the course of completion) and Regulation 12(5)(a)(international relations, defence, national security or public safety). The Commissioner’s decision is that the CRT did not hold the information falling within the scope of the request at the time it was requested and therefore considers that Regulation 12(4)(a) applies. Therefore, neither of the exceptions cited by the public authority is engaged. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(a)
View Canal and River Trust
25 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to alternative legal remedy (ALR). PHSO refused to comply with part 1 of the request under section 12 FOIA as it said it would exceed the cost limit to do so. It tried to answer part 2 of the request. The complainant requested an internal review in relation to PHSO’s response to part 2 of his request. PHSO confirmed that no recorded information was held relevant to this part of the request. The Commissioner considers that on the balance of probabilities, there is no recorded information held by PHSO under section 1(1)(a) FOIA relating to part 2 of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
25 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the value of comparable properties used to inform the assessment of the Council Tax Band for a property. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request relying on the exemption at section 44(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a).
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
View Valuation Office Agency
24 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of submissions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘the MHCLG’) relating to a proposed change of status for allotment land. The MHCLG withheld the requested information on the basis of EIR regulation 13(1) - third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG was correct to withhold the information on the basis of EIR regulation 13(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
24 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the number of weapons confiscated at individual Crown Court locations in England in the last two years. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) and 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated its application of sections 31 and 38. She finds that neither section is engaged and therefore the MoJ is not entitled to rely on either exemption. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 38
View Ministry of Justice