24 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about an email problem encountered by Leicestershire Police in October 2018. Leicestershire Police responded and provided an explanation. The complainant raised specific questions at the internal review stage. Leicestershire Police told him that the request could not be answered on cost grounds and refused it citing section 12(1) of FOIA – the cost of compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leicestershire Police was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA in relation to this request. However, by failing to demonstrate that it had considered its advice and assistance obligations, Leicestershire Police has breached section 16 of FOIA. In the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner has not ordered any steps as there does not appear to be any way of refining the request to bring it under the cost limit. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0361 struck out. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal UA-2020-
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Leicestershire Police
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
24 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the approval of planning applications and the involvement of named staff. The Council refused the request citing sections 21 – information accessible to applicant by other means; 40 –personal information; and 41 – information provided in confidence, of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ribble Valley Borough Council is entitled to rely on section 21 for some of the information requested but not all, and that sections 40 and 41 are engaged. She also finds that for the part of the request falling under the EIR, regulation 6(1)b is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the information for questions 1-8 of the request in the form and format requested. 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 o
Exemptions cited: EIR 6(1)(b); FOI 21; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Ribble Valley Borough Council
24 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from University College London (UCL) information relating to the provision of security services between UCL and CIS Security Ltd during 2018. UCL stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities UCL does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require UCL to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0394 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View University College London
24 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested whether information relating to the murder of Anna Lindh in 2003 was forwarded to COBR meetings on 16 and 17 of June 2016. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of this request citing exclusions from its obligation to do so in sections 24 (national security) and section 27 (international relations). It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on the exclusion at section 24(2) as a basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether it holds information within the scope of the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
24 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made three information requests relating to a particular housing development. Middlesbrough Borough Council refused all three requests because it deemed them to be vexatious and thus manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows. Although none of the requests were vexatious, Request 3 was burdensome and thus manifestly unreasonable. However, whilst the Council was entitled rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse Request 3, it was not entitled to rely on that exception to refuse either Request 1 or Request 2. In respect of Request 3, the Commissioner also finds that the Council was under a duty to provide advice and assistance to the complainant to help him narrow his request which it failed to discharge. The Council thus breached Regulation 9 of the EIR. Finally, the Council also failed to issue refusal notices to any of the requests within 20 working days and thus breached Regulation 14(2) of the EIR in respect of each request. The Commiss
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 9(1)
View Middlesbrough Council
23 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information about a meeting between Lord Barker of Battle and Sir Alan Duncan MP. The FCO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but explained that it considered the requested information to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35 (formulation and development of government policy) of FOIA and it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test. To date, the FCO has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations in relation to the request. By failing to complete these deliberations within a reasonable timeframe the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO has breached section 17(3) of FOIA in respect of its handling of this request. She requires the FCO to provide the complainant with a substantive response to his request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
23 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information about a meeting between Lord Barker of Battle and Sir Alan Duncan MP. The FCO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but explained that it considered the requested information to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35 (formulation and development of government policy) of FOIA and it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test. To date, the FCO has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations in relation to the request. By failing to complete these deliberations within a reasonable timeframe the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO has breached section 17(3) of FOIA in respect of its handling of this request. She requires the FCO to provide the complainant with a substantive response to his request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
23 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a Housing Infrastructure Fund. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government withheld the requested information under the exemption for the formulation of government policy (section 35(1)(a)). During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority disclosed the information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government disclosed the information outside the statutory time limit and breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
23 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a complaint which was made about claims in a particular advertisement. The Advertising Standards Authority refused to respond to the request as it did not consider that the requested information was environmental and notwithstanding that, it was not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the requested information was environmental but that, as the ASA is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR, it was not obliged to respond to the request. As the ASA is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR, the Commissioner has no power require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1); EIR 2(2)
23 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to recording decisions taken by Sussex Police. The Office of the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the OPCC did not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
23 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Hackney (“the London Borough”) concerning the reason why CCTV was installed at a particular site. The London Borough responded, answering his question but explained that it held no further recorded information other than what was initially provided to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that based on the balance of probabilities, the London Borough has provided all of the information it holds within the scope of the request. However by responding after the 20 working day deadline, the London Borough has breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken by the public authority.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View London Borough of Hackney
20 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council various information in relation to an application for funding under the Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity (PBSP) to convert his dwelling into a Bed and Breakfast. The funding scheme was delivered by Lisburn Leader Ltd on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council categorised the request as vexatious and refused it under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that request is vexatious and that Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council is not obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner also found that Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council breached section 17(5) as it did not give the complainant an adequate refusal notice within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
20 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (“DfE”) relating to the meetings of the counter-extremism unit between certain specified dates where the topic of Birmingham schools and an Islamist takeover were discussed. The complainant also requested a copy of the evidence upon which Michael Gove made such claims. The DfE refused the request because it estimated that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit, citing section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 12(1) FOIA but has found the public authority in breach of its duty to provide advice and assistance in line with section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
To provide appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant as far as it is reasonable to do so in accordance with its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Department for Education
20 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about financial support for an external organisation, Comic Relief. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0373 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
20 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the HERA score for a particular job role in the University College London (the university). Initially the request was refused under section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA but during the Commissioner’s investigation a late reliance in section 43 was also claimed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is not entitled to rely on section 43 of the FOIA for the non-disclosure of the requested information. In terms of section 36(2)(c), while the Commissioner accepted the exemption is engaged, she has decided that the public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption is outweighed by the public interest in favour of disclosure. She therefore requires the university to disclose the requested information to the complainant. In terms of procedural matters, the Commissioner found the university in breach of section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36; FOI 43
View University College London
20 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on meetings from 10 May 2018 between then Brexit minister Steve Baker and Shanker Singham. The Commissioner’s decision is that in the circumstances of the case the Department for Exiting the European Union (“DExEU”) has appropriately relied on the exemptions at sections 36 FOIA – Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner finds that DExEU failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36
View Department for Exiting the European Union
20 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the qualifications of an individual employee. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Gambling Commissioner has correctly cited the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0378 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Gambling Commission
20 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants have requested a copy of a report read out in a meeting of Atherstone Town Council (“the Council”) on 18 April 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the report under section 40(2) of FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
20 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Durham County Council (the Council) information in relation to its child social care, including statistics, policies and procedures in place. The Council refused the request, relying on section 12(1) of the FOIA, because it estimated that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to aggregate the requests submitted by the complainant for the purpose of its cost estimate. The Commissioner also found that the Council was entitled to refuse the requests under section 12(1) of the FOIA and that the advice and assistance it provided was reasonable in the circumstances.
The Commissioner does not require any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0388 Under Appeal. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0436 Under Appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Durham County Council
19 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning emails sent and received between 2010 and 2017 containing “Grenfell” and other terms. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (“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 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
19 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the London Food, Water and Environmental Microbiology Laboratory (LFWE) which is part of Public Health England (PHE). PHE has explained that it holds some, but not all, of the information falling within the scope of the request. PHE has provided some of the information it holds. However, it has withheld some of the requested information under section 31 of the FOIA. The complainant is concerned about PHE’s reliance on section 31 of the FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information does engage the exemption under section 31(1)(c), and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0395 disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View UK Health Security Agency
19 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of the bid submitted by Kendrick School (the School) to the Department for Education (DfE) for the Selective Schools Expansion Fund. The request was initially dealt with under the FOIA and refused under section 22 on the basis that the school intended to publish the bid at a later date. However during the Commissioner’s investigation she advised the School that, as information related to development of a new school building, the request should have been considered under the EIR. The School therefore reconsidered the request and applied a combination of regulation 13 – personal information and regulation 12(5)(e) – adverse effect on the confidentiality of commercial information, to withhold the majority of the information. It did however disclose some information. In respect of regulation 12(5)(e) the Commissioner finds that it applies to some but not all the withheld information. Similarly, the Commissioner finds that regulation 13 does not apply to
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13
View KENDRICK SCHOOL
19 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding recent tenders in relation to domestic abuse support services. The Police, Fire & Crime Commissioner for Staffordshire withheld the information, citing section 12(1) (Exceeding the cost limit) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police, Fire & Crime Commissioner for Staffordshire has applied section 12(1) of the FOIA appropriately. However, she considers that the Police, Fire & Crime Commissioner for Staffordshire has breached sections 10 (Time for compliance) and 17 (Refusal of a request) of the FOIA
The Commissioner does not require the Police, Fire & Crime Commissioner for Staffordshire to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12(1); FOI 17
18 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sport Wales about how much lottery funding had been spent on sports centres. Sport Wales failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Sport Wales to provide a response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
18 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sport Wales on the impact which the National Sports Lottery has had on the provision and refurbishment of sports centres. Sport Wales failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Sport Wales to provide a response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
18 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a specific farm. South Staffordshire Council did not respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Staffordshire Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR).
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View South Staffordshire Council
18 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police about their policy and procedure for dealing with drivers who lack a licence or insurance. 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
18 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Swansea Council’s NEAT team. Swansea Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Swansea Council to provide a response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Swansea Council
18 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Trowbridge Town Council about a park storage planning application. Trowbridge Town Council did not respond to this request within 20 working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that Trowbridge Town Council has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR).
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
18 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of the minutes of six meetings plus a list of the attendees. The public authority revealed the identities of the majority of attendees and withheld the minutes held relying on the exemptions at section 27(1)(c-d) (international relations) and section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Exiting the European Union
18 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to child abuse allegations at a specified children’s home between 1976 and 1981. Kent Police responded and initially said that it did not hold any information beyond that released in response to an earlier related request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, Kent Police revised its position and said that it could neither confirm nor deny on cost grounds (section 12(2) of FOIA) whether it holds the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police was entitled to rely on section 12(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. She also finds that it complied with its section 16 advice and assistance obligations. She does not require Kent Police to take any steps as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0376 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Kent Police
18 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police about the reporting of any incidents at a specific Tesco supermarket in October 2012. 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
18 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the costs incurred by North Yorkshire Police (NYP) in defending itself against a particular legal claim. NYP said that it was not obliged to comply with the request on the grounds that doing so would exceed the cost limit established under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NYP was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. However, she found that it breached section 10 (time for compliance) and section 16 (advice and assistance) of the FOIA in its handling of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View North Yorkshire Police
18 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental 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 applicant has requested information relating to his (and his father’s) ongoing concerns and dispute with the Environment Agency (EA) concerning Shoreham-on-Sea Water Supply (operated by Southern Water). The EA has refused to comply with two requests citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exception. She has however found the EA in breach of regulation 5(2) and 11 of the EIR in this case. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2)
View Environment Agency
18 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police about their policy and procedure for closing investigations. 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
18 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a breakdown of the number of staff dismissed by the public authority and a breakdown of the reasons for the dismissals covering a 3 year period. The public authority withheld the requested information relying on the exemption at section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 40(2) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Bank of England
17 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of a report by the Defence Safety Authority into the fire safety of defence single living accommodation and along with all emails and correspondence associated with this report. The MOD directed the complainant to a copy of the report which was already available online. The MOD sought to refuse to comply with the remainder of the request on the basis of section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The complainant argued that the request should have been considered entirely under the EIR. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information contains both environmental and non-environmental information. She has also concluded that MOD can refuse to provide the environmental information on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b) and can refuse to provide the non-environmental information on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); FOI 12
View Ministry of Defence
17 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Mansfield District Council (the Council) information in relation to planning and building control inspections of two named commercial entities regarding a handover of various facilities in Warsop. The Council stated that it did not hold information of such description.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council stated correctly that it did not hold the requested information, in compliance with Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0341 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Mansfield District Council
17 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about job descriptions and salary bands for procurement roles from Peterborough City Council (“the Council”). The Council stated that, as the information was held by Serco Group Plc, it did not hold it for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information, and that Serco does not hold it on the Council’s behalf. She does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 3
View Peterborough City Council
17 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to the costs paid in a specific legal claim brought against the council. The request was refused on the grounds that it was ‘vexatious’ in line with section 14(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Camden (“the London Borough”) has correctly relied upon section 14(1) of FOIA in relation to the complainant’s request.
The Commissioner does not require the London Borough to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0389 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Camden Council
17 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between Uber taxis and Sheffield City Council (the “Council”). The Council disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing the exemptions at sections 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) is properly engaged and the public interest in maintaining the exemption exceeds that in disclosure of the requested information. The Council was therefore correct to rely on section 43(2) to withhold the remaining information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Sheffield City Council
17 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the ministerial diary of Jake Berry MP who, during the time period specified in the request, was the minister with responsibility for the Northern Powerhouse project. The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government relied on section 14 of the FOIA to refuse the request, which, it argued, would impose a grossly oppressive burden on the ministry. The Commissioner requires MHCLG to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
16 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the information provided to the Universal Credit Programme Board for set meeting dates. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) withheld the information and cited section 22 ‘future publication’ and section 40(2) ‘personal data’ as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is not entitled to rely on section 22 to withhold the information. The information withheld under section 40(2) is not in dispute. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the information withheld under section 22 of the Act. 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0386 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Department for Work and Pensions
16 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a multipart request for information relating to a bid he submitted to purchase some land, several years ago. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) responded to the request, but the complainant remained dissatisfied with the response. The Commissioner’s decision is that SBC complied with its obligations in respect of regulation 5(1) (duty to make available environmental information available on request) of the EIR in respect of the majority of the request. However, she found that it failed to comply with this obligation in respect of part (10) of the request. She also found that it breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires SBC to issue a fresh response to part (10), either disclosing the information or issuing a refusal notice which complies with regulation 14 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Stockton-on-Tees Council
12 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various information relating to the development of a crematorium. North Somerset Council refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but subsequently informed the Commissioner that the request would fall under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and as such, sought to refuse the request as manifestly unreasonable on vexatious grounds under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, but breached regulation 14 by failing to inform the complainant of its refusal within the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0367 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14
View North Somerset Council
12 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding air monitoring relating to a large demolition and construction project. Homes England redacted information on the basis of EIR regulations 12(3) and 13(1) - third party personal data; and 12(5)(e) – confidentiality of commercial information. During the course of the investigation Homes England withdrew its reliance on regulation 12(5)(e) in favour of regulation 12(5)(f) – interests of the information provider. The Commissioner’s decision is that Homes England has appropriately relied upon the cited exceptions to withhold the requested information. Furthermore she finds that, on the balance of probabilities, Homes England 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 12(5)(f); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Homes England
12 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of draft plans shared with South Hams District Council (SHDC) by a landowner as part of the pre-application stage of a proposed housing development. SHDC refused to disclose the plans, citing the exception provided by 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that SHDC has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires SHDC to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View South Hams District Council
12 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various pieces of information about a bat survey at a particular site. The Welsh Government disclosed some information and withheld other information under regulations 12(5)(a), 12(5)(g) and 13. The complainant did not dispute the application of any exceptions but alleged that the Welsh Government held additional information relevant to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Welsh Government does not hold any additional information which it has not, to date, disclosed or withheld under any of the exceptions cited. However, the Commissioner finds that the Welsh Government breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR in failing to provide the requested information within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be take.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Welsh Government
11 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the use of paper boiler suits in custody suites from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS provided some information but advised that further information is not held. During the Commissioner’s investigation, some further information was identified as suitable for disclosure. In respect of that information the MPS is now required to either disclose it, or issue a valid refusal notice under section 17 of the FOIA explaining why it cannot be disclosed. In respect of any further information, the Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Metropolitan Police Service