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
11 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to staffing at North and East London Commissioning Support Unit (NEL CSU). NHS England refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England was correct to apply section12 FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not however consider that NHS England provided the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance based upon NHS England’s revised position that it would exceed the cost limit to comply with this request in isolation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View NHS England
11 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant initially requested information relating to the change of the ICO’s privacy notice following the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) in May 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that ICO (“the ICO”) failed to respond to a number of requests within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.Furthermore, the ICO did not comply with section 1 of the FOIA as it failed to confirm to the complainant what information it held. The Commissioner requires the ICO to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the outstanding requests listed in the Annex at the end of this notice. The ICO must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Firs
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Information Commissioner
11 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the outcome of an exercise carried out by the Contacts Management Team at the Trust with the contractor Interserve (Make Ready Contract). The Commissioner considers that the Trust has breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
10 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainants requested information relating to a section 106 agreement entered into by the council relating to a proposed skate park in Sawtry. The council provided some information and carried out searches for information on a number of occasions, however the complainants consider that further information must be held. The council then applied Regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) and said it would not carry out further searches for relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that whist Regulation 12(4)(b) was engaged by the request, the public interest in the exception being maintained does not outweigh that in responding further to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To respond again to the complainant's request, without relying upon Regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Huntingdonshire District Council
10 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding an Environment Agency flood model for a particular site. West Berkshire Council withheld the information its entirety citing EIR Regulation 12(4)(b) – manifestly unreasonable on the grounds of cost. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Berkshire Council has appropriately relied on EIR Regulation 12(4)(b) to withhold the requested information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. Furthermore it has complied with the requirements of regulation 9 – advice and assistance, and regulations 5(2) and 7(1) in the time it took to respond to the request The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2); EIR 9
View West Berkshire Council
10 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Transport for London about all charges levied against a specific vehicle registration number and which had been billed to a named individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that Transport for London failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”). As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require Transport for London to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Transport for London
10 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about its dealing with “The Produce Hall” from Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”). The Council provided some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 43(2) to withhold the information at parts (3) (latter part only), (4) and (5) of the request. In respect of parts (1), (2) and (3)(former part only) of the request she finds that neither section 43(2) nor 41(1) are engaged. In respect of these parts the Commissioner requires the Council to disclose any recorded information held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
9 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the ‘Single Oversight Framework’.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, NHS Improvement (NHSI) does not hold the information requested. The Commissioner does not require NHSI to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0377 Under Appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS England
9 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council (“the Council”) about an access ramp installed at a neighbouring property, including whether any information was held regarding planning procedure allegedly not being followed. The Council provided him with some information but withheld some under the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. It stated that some information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any information relating to procedure not being followed and it correctly withheld some information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. However, some of the information withheld under this exemption can be disclosed in anonymised form, with third party personal data redacted. The Council also breached section 10(1) of the FOIA, since it did not provide a response to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View Brighton and Hove City Council
9 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from South Staffordshire Council related to planning enforcement cases at several properties. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Staffordshire Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires South Staffordshire Council to provide a response to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View South Staffordshire Council
9 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to communications about Bradford & Bingley. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Financial Conduct Authority has correctly cited section 14(1) of the FOIA in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0363 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Financial Conduct Authority
9 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about court records relating to a named person. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing sections 32(3) (court records etc) and 40(5) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner investigated its application of section 32(3). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled, by virtue of section 32(3) of FOIA, to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
6 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about West Dorset District Council’s handling of FOI requests, and in particular its failure to respond to requests. The Council provided information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probability, the Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Lindsey District Council
6 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Portsmouth City Council for a copy of the templated wording or paragraphs it uses to either accept or reject representations made in respect of Penalty Charge Notices (“PCNs”). The Council confirmed that it holds this information bur refused to disclose it in reliance on section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that Portsmouth City Council’s reliance on 31(1)(a) cannot be sustained as the public interest favours the disclosure of the information the complainant has requested.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Portsmouth City Council
6 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about whether Derbyshire Constabulary is, has or would ever pay child rapists for information. Derbyshire Constabulary explained that it was neither confirming nor denying whether it held any information by virtue of section 12(2) (Exceeding the appropriate limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Derbyshire Constabulary is entitled to rely on section 12(2) of the FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information. She also considers that Derbyshire Constabulary has complied with section 10(1) (Time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Derbyshire Constabulary to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
View Derbyshire Constabulary
6 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In this case the Information Commissioner is both the public authority
which is the subject of the complaint and the regulator of the FOIA responsible for investigating the complaint. The notice will use the term Information Commissioner’s Officer (ICO) when referring to the Information Commissioner as the public authority subject to the complaint and the term Commissioner will be used to refer to her as the regulator. The complainant has requested from the ICO information about the scope of the exemption for processing data for personal and household activities contained in Article 2(2)(c) and Recital 18 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The ICO refused to disclose the information citing sections 22 (information intended for future publication) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly applied sections 22 and 42 of the FOIA in this case and that the public interest in favour of disclosure is outw
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 42
View Information Commissioner
6 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a temporary closure of the Rotherhithe Tunnel, including engineering report and risk assessments. Transport for London provided some summary information but refused to provide the full reports and assessments under the exception at regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Transport for London has correctly applied the exception at regulation 12(5)(a) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception and withholding the requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Transport for London
5 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the council and an individual. The council’s initial response was to refuse the request on the basis that section 40(2) applied (personal data). On review however it applied section 12(1) (appropriate limit). The complainant made a further request narrowing the scope of her request, however she also contested the application of 12(1) to her initial request. The council continues to argue that responding to the request would exceed the appropriate limit and therefore section 12(1) is applicable. The complainant also argued that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 16 in that it did not provide adequate assistance to her to narrow the scope of her request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied Regulation 12(1) in this instance. She has also decided that the council complied with the requirements of section 16(1) in that it did seek to provide advice and assistance to aid the compla
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Warrington Council
5 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to whether there was a need to extend the High Speed Two rail project by up to twelve months. High Speed Two Limited (HS2 Ltd) refused the request under a variety of exceptions. The exact same request had been made nearly two years earlier and the refusal of the earlier request was in the process of being appealed to the Information Tribunal. Therefore when the complainant asked HS2 Ltd to carry out an internal review of its decision to refuse the new request, it refused to do so until the Information Tribunal had reached a decision in respect of the earlier request. The Commissioner’s decision is that HS2 Ltd failed to comply with its duty under regulation 11 of the EIR to consider the complainant’s representations to carry out a review of its decision to refuse his request. The Commissioner requires the public authority conduct an internal review in accordance with its obligations under regulation 11.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
5 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Slough Borough Council relating to its purchase of 25 Windsor Road (its new town centre headquarters) from Observatory House (Jersey) Ltd in July 2018. Slough Borough Council stated that it had disclosed all the recorded information it holds falling within the scope of the complainant’s requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Slough Borough Council does not hold any further recorded information falling within the scope of the requests, and thus that it has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Slough Borough Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0359 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Slough Borough Council
5 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a closed file from The National Archives (“TNA”) relating to a historical police investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA correctly withheld the file from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner does not require TNA to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View The National Archives
5 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to MRI Scanner Housing. The Commissioner’s decision is that United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) 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 Trust to provide the complainant with a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
5 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a myth-busting document produced by the Department for Education (the DfE). The DfE disclosed some emails but disclosed some information under section 40(2). The remaining correspondence held by the DfE was withheld under section 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied the provisions of section 36(2)(b)(ii) to the correspondence and the public interest favours withholding the information. The Commissioner also finds section 40(2) is engaged in relation to the information withheld from the emails and this has been correctly withheld.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Department for Education
5 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of minutes of the Board of Governors meetings and a number of confidential annexes referred to in earlier minutes of meetings of the Board of Governors. The University applied sections 22, 36 and 43 to the request. The complainant was unhappy with the decision of the University of South Wales (‘the University’) to withhold the confidential annexes. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the University disclosed some of the information it originally withheld. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly applied sections 36, 40(2) and 43 to the remaining withheld information. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40(2); FOI 43
View University of South Wales
5 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to specific items of expenditure on Humberside Police’s list of published spending. Humberside Police provided some information but refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Humberside Police has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information. However she found a procedural breach of section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Humberside Police
5 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the “action photos” contained in a particular Fire Risk Assessment (“FRA”) conducted for Northwood Tower. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Waltham Forest (“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
4 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about the decision to cancel a procurement framework by the Crown Commercial Service. The Cabinet Office disclosed some of the information requested but sought to withhold further information on the basis of section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that only some of this information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2). However, the Commissioner does accept that for the information which is exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exemption the public interest favours withholding this information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Cabinet Office
4 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to pre-application advice regarding a specified property. The London Borough of Croydon refused the request in reliance on regulation 12(4)(b) on the basis that the request was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Croydon
4 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complaints that she has made relating to a school. Hertfordshire County Council disclosed some information, and withheld the remainder under sections 40(2) and 41. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the information under sections 40(2) and 41, and has otherwise disclosed all held information. However, the Council breached section 10(1) by responding to the request outside the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0372 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View Hertfordshire County Council
4 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for information relating to the purchase and sale of a student hostel. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, the Governing Body of Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College (the College) has not provided a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College 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 College to provide the complainant with a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
3 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the number of Penalty Charge Notices (“PCNs”) issued in respect of a particular box junction, as well as the total fines collected from these PCNs. The complainant submitted their request to an address provided by the London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) for their parking team. 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 London Borough of Lambeth
3 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Northampton (“the university”) regarding the qualifications of a named individual. The information was withheld by the university under section 40(2)(third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2) and requires no further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0324 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View The University of Northampton
3 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (“DHSC”) about funding allocations for DIPG specific research and childhood brain cancers. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
2 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the creation of a draft neighbourhood plan. Bracebridge Heath Parish Council refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council should have handled the request under the EIR but that the request was vexatious and thus manifestly unreasonable. She therefore considers that the Parish Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. However, as the Parish Council should have handled the request under the EIR, it should also have carried out an internal review (reconsideration) of its response. It therefore breached regulation 11 of the EIR in responding to the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b)
2 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the income received in rent and service charges from homes and businesses in the Wood Street area, and the expenditure on repairs and maintenance for the Marlowe Road estate for the period 2010 to 2016. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Waltham Forest (“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
2 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to pension fund investments. Gwynedd Council eventually provided the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Gwynedd Council
2 Sep 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (‘PSNI’) relating to digital marketing. The PSNI refused the request, citing the cost limit as set out in section 12(1) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request and therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
2 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of spending transactions. City of Cardiff Council failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cardiff Council
2 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) submission to the Lammy Review. The CPS refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) are engaged and that the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. However, as the CPS failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time, it breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36
View Crown Prosecution Service
2 Sep 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Croydon Employment Tribunal. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) ultimately provided some information within the scope of the request. It denied holding some of the requested information and refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 32(1)(c) (court records) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on sections 40(2) and 32(1)(c), respectively, to withhold the information within the scope of parts (1) and (3) of the request. She also found that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ did not hold some of the requested information within the scope of part (2) of the request and it therefore complied with the duty set out at section 1(1) (general right of access) of the FOIA. The Commissioner found a procedural breach of section 10. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0362 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 32; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
2 Sep 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted three requests for various information in respect of Mill Bay Homes from Pembrokeshire County Council. The Council refused all three requests on the basis that they were vexatious, citing section 14(1) of the FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s investigation, Pembrokeshire Council reconsidered the requests under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR), citing regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that Pembrokeshire County Council should have originally considered the request under the EIR, and was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) in respect of all three requests. The Commissioner has also recorded a breach of regulation 14 in respect of the first request due to its response being outside of the required timescale (20 working days) to provide a response.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Pembrokeshire County Council
30 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to pre-application advice regarding a specified property. The London Borough of Croydon refused the request in reliance on regulation 12(4)(b) on the basis that the request was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Croydon
30 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to pre-application advice regarding a specified property. The London Borough of Croydon provided most of the requested information and withheld some information in reliance on the exception at regulation 13 of the EIR (third party personal data). Following an internal review the Council sought to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) on the basis that the request was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council wrongly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the request. However she also finds that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 13 in respect of the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 13
View London Borough of Croydon
30 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to pre-application advice regarding a specified property. The London Borough of Croydon refused the request in reliance on regulation 12(4)(b) on the basis that the request was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Croydon
30 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a planning application regarding a specified property. The London Borough of Croydon provided most of the requested information and withheld some information in reliance on the exception at regulation 13 and regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 13 in respect of the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 13
View London Borough of Croydon
30 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to pre-application advice regarding a specified property. The London Borough of Croydon refused the request in reliance on regulation 12(4)(b) on the basis that the request was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Croydon
30 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a category of employers known as Special Category Employers (“SCEs”). The Pension Protection Fund (“the PPF”) consider the requested information to be “restricted information” which is prohibited from disclosure under section 197 of the Pensions Act 2004[1].
The Commissioner’s decision is that the PPF has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA on the basis that the requested information is prohibited from disclosure under section 197 of the Pensions Act 2004.
The Commissioner does not require the PPF to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Pension Protection Fund
30 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) the hourly rates of all legal professionals instructed and the total sums paid to each firm (they were employed by) between 2017 and 2018. The PHSO disclosed the total sums paid to each firm but applied section 43(2) of the FOIA (Commercial interests) to withhold the hourly rates of each legal professional. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO has correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the PHSO to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0312 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
29 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (‘PSNI’) relating to the issue of body armour to police officers. The PSNI refused the request, citing the cost limit as set out in section 12(1) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request and therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Police Service of Northern Ireland