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
29 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information drawn from the Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) conducted by Ridge and Partners LLP for Northwood Tower for the period 29 June 2018 to 29 June 2019. 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
28 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning applications to the Camden Housing register over a three year period. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the London Borough of Camden (“the Council”), does not hold any further information to that already disclosed.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Camden Council
28 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the identities of those who contributed to a specific report and about future research projects. Public Health England refused both requests as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that PHE should have dealt with both requests under the EIR and that it was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse either request. She also finds that PHE failed to respond to either request within 20 working days and failed to provide the complainant with the opportunity to have an internal review of either response. PHE thus breached regulations 5(2) and 11 of the EIR in the way it responded to both requests. The Commissioner requires PHE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, under the EIR, to both requests, which does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2)
View UK Health Security Agency
28 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to bookings of the Government Car Service for a particular date within a particular area. The Department for Transport (DfT) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, relying on section 40(5) – personal information, as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfT is entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Department for Transport
27 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) information relating to the 2012 Tree Preservation Regulations. MHCLG disclosed some information and confirmed that it did not hold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MHCLG does not hold any additional information relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require MHCLG to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
27 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of communications between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and The Duke of York and/or Sarah, Duchess of York, concerning the wedding of their daughter Princess Eugenie. The public authority neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, relying on sections 37(2) (communications with members of The Royal Family) and 40(5)(B)(a) (personal data) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 37(2) FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0333 Under Appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37(2)
View HM Treasury
27 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a report to councillors regarding the extension of contract dated 2015. The council applied Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and Regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(b) and Regulation 12(4)(e) to with withhold the information. She has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 11(4). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
27 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Brighton and Hove City Council information consisting of a draft report relating to a planning application. The Council refused the request on the grounds that Regulation 12(4)(d) applied (material in the course of completion). The Commissioner’s decision is that Regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged in this particular case. However, she has decided that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception at Regulation 12(4)(d) does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information.The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose a copy of the withheld information to the complainant. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
27 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various Building Control files for barn conversions. Carmarthenshire County Council initially refused the request on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it altered its position, providing some generic information and refusing the bulk by virtue of regulation 13 of the EIR on the basis that the information is third party personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Carmarthenshire County Council was entitled to rely on regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the requested information. However, its delay in providing the information not falling within this exception, constitutes a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0346 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Carmarthenshire County Council
23 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to NHS Improvement (NHSI) for the raw data of the Purchase Price Index and Benchmarking Data (PPIB). NHSI refused the request under the section 43(2) (commercial interests) exemption. During the investigation NHSI also cited section 14 (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSI has correctly applied the vexatious provision at section 14(1) of the FOIA. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View NHS England
23 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two requests to Birmingham City Council for information about a consultation undertaken by the King Edward VI Trust. The Council responded that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the information requested in request 1 and request 2 (part 1), but has failed to respond to request 2 (part 2). The Council has breached section 10(1) by failing to provide a valid response to request 1 and request (part 2) within the time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a response to request 2 (part 2) under the terms of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Birmingham City Council
23 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the presenters on Politic Now, D-Day coverage, news programmes generally, Today programme, A Good Read and Women's Hour. The BBC said that the requested information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall within the scope of FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
23 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about where trade parking permits can be used, stating a preference for communication. Sheffield City Council did not provide the requested information in the specified preference for communication.The Commissioner’s decision is that Sheffield City Council does not have to communicate the requested information by the preferred preference for communication. However, she considers that Sheffield City Council has breached section 11(3) (Means by which communication to be made) of the FOIA as it did not inform the complainant why it was not providing the requested map in his preferred preference of communication. The Commissioner also considers that Sheffield City Council has breached sections 10(1) (Time for compliance) and 16(1) (Duty to provide advice and assistance) of the FOIA.The Commissioner does not require Sheffield City Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 11; FOI 16
View Sheffield City Council
23 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a report which was referred to in the minutes of a meeting at Royston Town Council (“the Council”) on 25 June 2018. The Council redacted some of the information in the report as being third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly redacted some information in the report under regulation 13(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0327 Appeal Allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
23 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of all correspondence between particular parties relating to a specific planning application. Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council (“the Council”) cited section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s view is that the request should have been handled under the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”) as opposed to the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”). The Commissioner’s decision is that although the Council was incorrect to rely on section 12 to refuse the request, she is of the view that the request was manifestly unreasonable. Therefore it was correct to refuse the request however it should have cited regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner is also of the view that the Council has provided adequate advice and assistance in order to help identify the focus of the complainant’s research with a view to answer the request. However, as the Council discovered it held more information that it initially said it d
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council
22 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the legal ownership of four properties. Huntingdonshire District Council denied holding information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request had multiple objective readings. The Council failed to ensure that it had the correct interpretation of the request and therefore the Commissioner finds that the Council breached its section 16 duty. The Commissioner also finds that the Council failed to comply with its duties under section 1 of the FOIA within 20 working days and therefore also breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: contact the complainant to seek clarification of his request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16
View Huntingdonshire District Council
22 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) about inspections, safety defects and improvement deadlines over a 2 year period. The ONR applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to the request, as it estimated the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ONR applied section 12(1) of the FOIA incorrectly as it did not reasonably estimate that the cost to comply with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. She also finds that in failing to adequately advise the complainant on how to refine his request to bring it within the cost limit, the ONR breached section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the ONR to write to the complainant with a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Office for Nuclear Regulation
22 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Essex County Council (“the Council”), minutes from historic meetings held relating to a change of a specific school in the county to a comprehensive school. The Council explained that the information was accessible by other means and therefore has not provided the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 21 of the FOIA and therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Essex County Council
22 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding complaints submitted to the Hampshire Police and Crime Panel. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire County Council has appropriately relied upon section 40(2) – personal data, to withhold information in scope of the request. Furthermore she has found, on the balance of probabilities, that the council does not hold further information in scope of the request and it has therefore complied with section 1 – general right of access. The complainant also disputes that the council can legally answer FOIA requests on behalf of the Hampshire Police and Crime Panel. The Commissioner finds that the Panel is not a public authority as defined by section 3(1) of the FOIA; and that the council holds the requested information for its own purposes. She therefore concludes that the council is correct to answer FOIA requests in this regard. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0351 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Hampshire County Council
22 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
As part of a wider request, the complainant has requested information associated with a response the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) provided to a previous request he submitted to it, about its dispute resolution rules. FOS refused to comply with part 3 of the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) and did not provide a response to part 4 of the request. The complainant has confirmed to the Commissioner that his complaint is focussed on the timeliness of FOS’ responses, and not FOS’ reliance on section 12(1). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: FOS breached section 17(5) of the FOIA with regard to part 3 of the request as it did not issue the complainant with a refusal notice within 20 working days. FOS breached section 10(1) with regard to part 4 as it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days, with regard to this part. FOS has now issued the complainant with a response to part 4 of the request and the Commissione
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
22 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Complainants against doctors are determined by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT). The decisions of the MPT can be appealed by the General Medical Council (GMC). The complainant has requested the ethnicity of the doctors about whom the GMC made such appeals. The GMC provided a copy of statistics which had been released following an earlier information request from a different applicant, but refused to provide the updated statistics on the basis that the information was exempt under section 40(2). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the GMC also applied section 14(1) – vexatious, to the request. It also became apparent during the Commissioner’s investigation that the GMC held more detailed statistics on the ethnicity of the doctors involved. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC were not entitled to rely on section 14 to refuse the request. It was however entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold both the updated statistics and the more detailed statist
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 40(2)
View GMC
22 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant twice requested information from Lyneham and Bradenstoke Parish Council (“the Council”). First, for information concerning recent financial transactions. Second, for copies of recent Council meeting minutes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the requests within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
21 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
In a five part request, the complainant has requested information associated with the operation of the sewerage system at Whitburn, and information associated with a previous request for information he had submitted to it. The Environment Agency (EA) refused to comply with parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the request. EA complied with part 5 of the request. EA subsequently confirmed to the Commissioner that it is relying on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request). The Commissioner’s decision is that parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the request are manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR - by virtue of being vexatious - and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the EA to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0347 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Environment Agency
21 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested figures relating to Government funding and government grants for the years between 2010 and 2019, as well as predicted Grant figures for the year 2019 to 2020.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Reading Borough Council (“the Borough 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 Reading Borough Council
21 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested financial information about payments made by Slough Borough Council (‘SBC’) to social care providers. SBC disclosed most of the requested information but said that it did not hold financial information in respect of children’s services because those services were provided by Slough Children’s Services Trust Limited (‘the Trust’), which is a separate legal entity. The complainant argued that the Trust held this information on behalf of SBC, and therefore that the information was accessible from SBC, under the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SBC was entitled to state that it did not hold this information for the purposes of the FOIA, as it does not fall within the definition of “held” at section 3(2)(b) of the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0344 Under Appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Slough Borough Council
21 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to any evaluation undertaken or commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) into the financial impact to the NHS of the repeal of section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injury) Act 1948. The DHSC withheld the information under section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information under section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department of Health and Social Care
21 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Executive Office (NI).The Commissioner’s decision is that Executive Office (NI) correctly relied on section 14(1) not to provide the requested information to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
21 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Manchester City Council (“the Council”) relating to its climate change action plan with reports and guides stemming from that. The Council refused part of the request as it contained incomplete material. However, although some drafts were later provided to the complainant, the Commissioner is of the view that the information released does not constitute what was actually requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR by not providing the information requested within the time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Manchester City Council
21 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a multipart request for information about specific highways. Lincolnshire County Council informed the complainant that, in respect of part 1 of the request, it could make the information available subject to a charge of £1050.00, in accordance with regulation 8 of the EIR. The Council also stated, in respect of part 4 of the request, that information was held but was already publicly available, and, in respect of part 5 of the request, that information was withheld under various exceptions. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows. In respect of part 1 of the request, the Council has breached regulation 8(3) by seeking to levy an unreasonable charge for the provision of environmental information. In respect of part 4 of the request, the Council has failed to demonstrate that proper searches for recorded information have been carried out, leading the Commissioner to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that further information may be held, thus breaching
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 8
View Lincolnshire County Council
21 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to know whether Queen’s Consent was sought by the Secretary of State during a specified period and, if it was, for copies of correspondence regarding it. The Home Office advised the complainant that it did not hold any information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office does not hold the requested information. However, she found that because the Home Office failed to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance, it breached section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
21 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning asbestos reports on buildings used and managed by the Cabinet Office along Whitehall, as well as information about asbestos related health claims made against the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office did not respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”).
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Cabinet Office
21 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning plans, discussions, and related documents made by the National Security Council in respect of climate change and climate emergencies. The Cabinet Office did not respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”).
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Cabinet Office
20 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Legal Services Board (LSB) relating to a high profile investigation. The LSB denied holding some of the requested information. It provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder, citing section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the LSB’s application of section 44(1)(a).The Commissioner’s decision is that the LSB was entitled to find that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA by virtue of section 167(1) of the Legal Services Act 2007. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0343 Under Appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Legal Services Board
20 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the reasons for the delay in the sign-off of the Air Quality Expert Group Report on Potential Impact of Shale Gas Extraction in the UK. Defra provided some information but withheld internal emails on this subject under the exception for internal communications (Regulation 12(4)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception is engaged but the public interest favours disclosing the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information, ensuring that any personal data is redacted under the terms of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
20 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office concerning the Cabinet Office and Hoveton Parish Council. The Cabinet Office responded to say that it held information relevant to the request, but that it would need to extend the time taken to complete its public interest test considerations in relation to the citing of section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). 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
20 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an unedited recording or transcript for a specified court case. After initially refusing to provide the requested information by virtue of section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) later instead relied on sections 32 (court records) and 44 (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 32(1)(a) of FOIA to refuse this request for the reasons set out in this notice. She does not require the MOJ to take any steps as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0331 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
20 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about costs associated with the London Borough of Hillingdon’s in-house legal services department. Some information was provided but the remainder of the request was refused because responding to it would have exceeded the cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough was entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request. However, she also finds that the London Borough failed to discharge its section 16 duty to provide adequate advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help him refine his request such that it falls within the cost limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Hillingdon Council
20 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two request about leases. The Homes & Communities Agency originally refused the requests because it claimed that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. The complainant then refined both requests and, once clarified, all the requested information was supplied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Homes & Communities Agency issued a refusal notice, which complied with section 17 of the FOIA, within 20 working days of the both requests having been made. It was entitled to treat both refined requests as a fresh requests, entitled to seek clarification in respect of both requests and responded to both clarified requests within 20 working days – thus complying with its duties under section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Homes and Communities Agency
20 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about meetings between ministers at the Department for Transport (“the DfT”) and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. The DfT provided some information, but redacted part of the documents under regulation 13 – third party personal data, and other parts under regulation 12(4)(d) – materials in the course of completion and/or regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT correctly redacted the withheld information under regulation 13 and regulation 12(4)(d) respectively. It was not necessary for her also to consider regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner does not require the DfT to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 13
View Department for Transport
20 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked Chichester District Council for information and advice it provided to councillors at a meeting on 21 September 2018. The information the complainant has asked for concerns the Council’s proposals for the A27. The Commissioner considers that the Council should have responded to the complainant’s request under the provisions of the EIR rather than those of the FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that the Council has complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR but has failed to comply with regulation 5(2).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1)
View Chichester District Council
20 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Hastings Borough Council information consisting of a report or document from which two figures were extracted following a previous information request. 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 correct that it did not hold the requested information, but that it breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR as its internal review was not carried out within the required 40 working days.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
19 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the total number of speeding offences on the M23 since the introduction of a 50 miles per hour speed limit. Surrey Police refused to provide the requested information, citing section 38 (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey Police was incorrect to cite sections 38(1)(a) and (b) to withhold the requested information. She requires Surrey Police to disclose the requested information within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Surrey Police
19 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a proposed new Saddleworth school. The Commissioner’s decision is that Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council has disclosed all the relevant information it holds and complied with section 1(1) but that in failing to do so in time it breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Oldham Council
19 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various pieces of information relating to Talybont Surgery. Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board (‘ABMUHB’) stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, ABMUHB does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the requests. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0318 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
19 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a request for information to Warwickshire County Council. The complainant’s request is comprised of 31 questions which require the Council to provide recorded information or confirmatory answers relating to his son’s admission to a named school in 2013 for the purpose of intended litigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that Warwickshire County Council has complied with the provisions of section 1 of the FOIA where the complainant’s questions are valid requests for recorded information. The Commissioner has also decided that several of the complainant’s questions do not seek the disclosure of recorded information. Rather they are questions requiring the Council to provide confirmatory responses or opinions and therefore the Council is not obliged to respond to these questions under the provisions of the FOIA. The Council’s late provision of recorded information in response to two of the complainant’s questions means that the Council has breached section
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Warwickshire County Council
19 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to properties listed as Homes of Multiple Occupancy (HMO). The Commissioner’s decision is that Brighton & Hove City Council has correctly cited section 21(1) of the FOIA in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Brighton and Hove City Council
19 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a list of orders and judgments issued by a named Employment Tribunal Judge when sitting at a named tribunal. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ did not hold the requested information. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
16 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information related to unoccupied government-owned property in the West Midlands that falls under the “Business B2” band or can be converted to that classification.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Government Property Agency (“the GPA”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the GPA 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 Government Property Agency
16 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from West Sussex County Council (the Council) regarding parking bay sizes. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the Council was therefore entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View West Sussex County Council