16 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an investigatory report written by the Department for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (“Defra”). Defra refused to provide this information and withheld the entirety of the report under sections 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra has correctly applied section 41 and section 40(2) to the withheld information. The Commissioner has additionally found that section 40(1) applied to the withheld information and was therefore exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. She has also decided that Defra breached section 17(1) of the FOIA by not issuing a refusal notice stating what exemptions were being relied on within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(2); FOI 41
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
16 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Manchester City Council (“the Council”) regarding pension payments. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Manchester City Council
16 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information in respect of halal meat served to patients and staff. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the Health Board provided a further response to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Aneurin Bevan University Health Board has now complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. However, its failure to provide a full response within the appropriate timescales represents a breach of section 10 of the FOIA. As the Council has now complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA, the Commissioner does not require the public authority to any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Aneurin Bevan University Health Board
16 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the management and dispersal of Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) funding over a five year period. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (“the London Borough”) provided the information it held but the complainant considered the figures to be inaccurate.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham does not hold any further information to that already disclosed.
The Commissioner finds that the London Borough breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by not complying with section 1(1)(a) within the statutory timeframe.
The Commissioner does not require the London Borough to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Barking and Dagenham Council
15 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In two separate requests the complainant has requested information from Arts Council England (ACE) about a draft letter and Acceptance in Lieu Panel recommendations and correspondence. With regard to part [1] of request 1, ACE provided relevant information it holds. With regard to part [2] of request 1, ACE provided some relevant information and has refused to fully comply with this part under section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost exceeds appropriate limit). ACE’s final position with regard to request 2 is that it is refusing to comply with this request under section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: ACE has complied with section 1(1) with regard to part [1] of request 1. ACE can rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with part [2] of request 2. ACE complied with section 16(1) with regard to this part as it offered the complainant adequate advice as to how he might refine his request to bring complying with it under the cost limit. ACE can
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 14; FOI 17
View Arts Council England
15 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the Universal Credit Programme. The DWP relies on section 12 (estimated cost) not to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP correctly relied on section 12 not to comply with the complainant’s request for information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department for Work and Pensions
15 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the “Responsible Person” as defined in section 2(1) The Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009. Surrey County Council disclosed some information and explained that it did not hold the remainder.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey County Council was correct to state that it does not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner therefore considers that it has not breached section 1 (right to information) of the FOIA.
However, the Commissioner does consider that Surrey County Council has breached sections 10 (Time for compliance) and 17 (Refusal of a request) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require Surrey County Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View Surrey County Council
15 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested reports and emails from Middlesbrough Council (“the Council”) regarding Middlesbrough bus station. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulations 5(1) and 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and it has complied with the requirement of regulation 9 to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(1); EIR 9
View Middlesbrough Council
15 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested reports on the urgent and emergency system from NHS England. At the date of this notice, NHS England has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: NHS England has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has not provided a response to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires NHS England to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 28 May 2019 that complies with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
15 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for information relating to Healthcare Assistants. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) has not provided a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that 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 Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
15 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In two separate requests the complainant has requested information from Arts Council England (ACE) about a draft letter and Acceptance in Lieu Panel recommendations and correspondence. With regard to part [1] of request 1, ACE provided relevant information it holds. With regard to part [2] of request 1, ACE provided some relevant information and has refused to fully comply with this part under section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost exceeds appropriate limit). ACE’s final position with regard to request 2 is that it is refusing to comply with this request under section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: ACE has complied with section 1(1) with regard to part [1] of request 1. ACE can rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with part [2] of request 2. ACE complied with section 16(1) with regard to this part as it offered the complainant adequate advice as to how he might refine his request to bring complying with it under the cost limit. ACE can
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 14; FOI 17
View Arts Council England
15 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the suppressed figures on outcomes of specific disciplinary investigations. The Barts Health NHS Trust (the Trust) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0338 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Barts Health NHS Trust
14 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to council tax. Brighton and Hove City Council (the council) provided the information however the complainant considered it held more. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided the complainant with the information it holds falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Brighton and Hove City Council
14 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the appointment of a new Assistant Chief Constable (ACC). Greater Manchester Police (GMP) disclosed some information, but the complainant believed that GMP had not disclosed to him all the information it held which fell within the scope of his request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, in failing to disclose some information it holds which it acknowledged was not exempt from disclosure, GMP breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. GMP also breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires GMP to disclose to the complainant the information described in the internal review as “guidance for vetting levels”.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Greater Manchester Police
14 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about its visa and immigration partners from the Home Office (“HO”). The HO responded to the request but it was unclear whether or not this was under the terms of the FOIA. In response to the Commissioner’s enquiries it advised that it considered that it had responded in full to the request, albeit no actual information was provided, as relevant staff had provided responses based on their knowledge.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the HO’s response is not compliant with the requirements of the FOIA. In failing to provide a response which is compliant with the FOIA the HO has breached section 1 of the FOIA. The HO is required to issue a fresh response advising the complainant whether or not it holds any recorded information and, if so, it must either disclose that to him or issue a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 8
View Home Office
14 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request relating to fresh/new requests for investigation and for PHSO board minutes for 2018.
PHSO refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) FOIA as it considered the request to be vexatious. The Commissioner considers that PHSO correctly applied section 14(1) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0334 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
13 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning health and safety from Humberside Police. Humberside Police failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Humberside Police to provide a response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Humberside Police
13 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a Voluntary Exit Scheme in the former Department of Finance and Personnel. The public authority refused to comply with the request relying on section 12(1) FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was not entitled to rely on section 12(1) FOIA and additionally found the public authority in breach of its duty to provide advice and assistance further to section 16 FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Department of Finance
13 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to archaeological works undertaken at the former Reading prison. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information but withheld the remainder, citing regulations 12(3) and regulation 13 (personal data), regulation 12(4)(d) (information in the course of completion), regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and regulation 12(5)(g) (protection of the environment) of the EIR. The Commissioner has investigated its application of regulation 12(5)(g). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception provided by regulation 12(5)(g) is engaged and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(g)
View Ministry of Justice
13 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information concerning the Crossrail 2 project specifically in relation to one of its proposed routes. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request relying on the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(e) EIR. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) but not the exception at regulation 12(4)(d).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Greater London Authority
13 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the use of catheter-directed thrombolysis to treat arterial occlusions. 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
12 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about advice given by Public Health England (PHE) regarding the Wiltshire novichok poisonings. PHE answered the questions asked and stated that information would be exempt on the basis of section 24, 40 and 42. On review, it later amended its position to state that in fact no recorded information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, PHE does not hold any recorded information relevant to the request. PHE has therefore complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0335 Under Appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View UK Health Security Agency
12 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the Wiltshire novichok incidents, including emergency response times and details of time at the scene and time taken to get to the hospital by the ambulances attending. The public authority refused to provide the information on the basis of section 24, 38 and 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust has correctly applied the provisions of the section 24 exemption and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the requested information. She therefore does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0330 Under Appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
12 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the crime screening policies of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS 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 MPS to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
12 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the construction of a cycle bridge. Devon County Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for commercial interests – section 43(2) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld the information under the exception for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that Devon County Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1) of the EIR and that it correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
View Devon County Council
12 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about meetings and communications between Folkestone and Hythe District Council and third party organisations. The Council informed the complainant that it could make the information available subject to a charge of £75.00, in accordance with regulation 8 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached regulation 8(3) by seeking to levy an unreasonable charge for the provision of environmental information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the complainant that does not seek to apply a charge under regulation 8.
Exemptions cited: EIR 8
View Folkestone and Hythe District Council
12 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an alleged incident at Linby-cum-Papplewick Primary School (“the School”). The School identified some information and provided this to the complainant. However, it withheld legal advice used to make the decision to redact a police statement on the basis of section 42. It also maintained the police statement was appropriately redacted under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The School identified some further documents during the investigation which it withheld under section 31. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has correctly applied the provisions of section 40 and 42 to the legal advice and redacted statement respectively. The Commissioner finds the School has incorrectly cited section 31 in relation to the chronologies and that there is a possibility further information may be held. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the chronologies with appropriate redactions for personal data and to conduct searches
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 31; FOI 40; FOI 42
9 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to numbers of Down syndrome births. The Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Trust failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days and so breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0309 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
9 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to numbers of Down syndrome births. The Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0310 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
9 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the disclosure of an investigative report on a named senior police officer. Humberside Police failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA. Humberside Police failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore also breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Humberside Police to provide a response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View Humberside Police
9 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Highbury College (the college) to disclose the total expense claims for the previous five academic years, starting 2014/15, made on the principal’s corporate card and all accompanying receipts. The college refused to comply with the request citing section 14(1) of the FOIA on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the college is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. She therefore requires the college to issue a fresh response in accordance with the FOIA to the complainant, which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
9 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested meeting minutes for the Extra-Ordinary Meeting of 15th March 2018.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Beaconsfield Town Council (“the Town Council”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Town Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
The Town 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
9 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the number of cases involving the death of a hospital in-patient which the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) had investigated in total, together with the number of such cases that the two named officers had investigated. The LGSCO refused the request for the total figure under section 12 – cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit, and the requests for number of cases investigated by the two officers were refused under section 40(2) – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the LGSCO is entitled to refuse the first part of the request under section 12. However the Commissioner is not satisfied that the LGSCO has complied with its duty under section 16 to consider what, if any, advice and assistance it can provide the complainant to enable him to refine his request so that it can be dealt within the appropriate limit. In respect of the requests for the number of cases investigated by each of the
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 40(2)
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
9 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information regarding claims the UK had made about Russian disinformation following the Novichok poisoning in Salisbury. The FCO provided the complainant with information which it argued fell within the scope of his request, a position which the complainant disputed. The Commissioner has concluded that the information disclosed by the FCO does not fall within the scope of the request. The FCO therefore failed to comply with the requirements of section 1(1) of FOIA by not stating, as it should have done, then it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. Furthermore, the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a substantive response to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
9 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested quarterly information concerning Manchester City Council’s progress in meeting its Climate Change Action Plan. The Council responded, providing some information falling within the scope of the request but advising information was not collated on a quarterly basis and would be available in the Annual Progress Report to be published in July 2019. Following an investigation, the Commissioner’s decision is that Manchester City Council has provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request. However, it failed to do so within the 20 working day time for compliance and therefore the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Manchester City Council
9 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to numbers of Down syndrome births. The Whittington Health NHS Trust (the Trust) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0311 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Whittington Health NHS Trust
9 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to ambulance provision and staff absences. The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust (NIAS) has failed to respond to the request; therefore the Commissioner’s decision is that NIAS has failed to comply with section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires NIAS to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
8 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested particular contracts from Garstang Medical Practice (‘the Practice’). Having initially provided a response to the complainant, the Practice is now relying on section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious request) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Practice can rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Practice breached section 17(5) as it did not issue an appropriate refusal notice within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require the Practice to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0317 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
8 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for information relating to the actions of Total Parking Solutions (TPS), and the contract between United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) and TPS. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, the Trust has not provided a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that 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
8 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Birmingham City Council (the Council) a feasibility study report concerning the Home of Metal project. The Council refused the request under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly cited section 43(2) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Birmingham City Council
7 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking confirmation as to whether a particular individual had been accused or investigated in respect of allegations of historic sexual abuse. The MOD refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information on the basis of sections 30(3) (investigations) and 40(5) personal data of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the MOD is entitled to rely on section 30(3) and that in all of the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Ministry of Defence
7 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to negotiations between a developer and the council into the purchase of a section of land. The council argues that the request is vexatious and applied section 14 of the FOI Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply section 14 to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To issue a fresh response to the complainant’s request as required by section 1 of the FOI Act, without relying upon section 14 of the Act.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
6 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Norfolk County Council (the Council) regarding details provided for an investigation which relate to the project to develop a waste incinerator in Norfolk.
The Council provided information which contained some redactions in accordance with regulations 12(3) and 13(1) (third party personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply regulations 12(3) and 13(1) to withhold some of the information. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to carry out an internal review within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0313 Appeal Allowed in Part.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(3); EIR 13(1)
View Norfolk County Council
6 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the decision by Sheffield International Venues (SIV) not to hire Whitby Pavilion to the then promoter or their company as part of Whitby Goth Weekend. Scarborough Borough Council (the Council) provided some information within the scope of the request, but refused to provide the remainder citing sections 40(2) (personal information), 41 (information provided in confidence), 42 (legal professional privilege) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. It also said that some information within the scope of the request was not held. The Commissioner has investigated the Council’s application of sections 42 and 43(2) to the information withheld by virtue of those exemptions. She has also considered whether, on the balance of probabilities, the Council held further information within the scope of part (d) of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply the section 42 and 43(2) exemptions to the withheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 42; FOI 43
6 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a named lane. The council initial refused to provide the information under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA). During the Commissioner’s investigation the council reconsidered the request under the EIR and subsequently provided the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it provided the information outside the required 20 working days. As the information has now been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
5 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to any investigations of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that the City of London Police 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 City of London Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View City of London Police
5 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to usage charges and monitoring of Aspen cards. The Home Office failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to provide a response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
5 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information concerning Oman and anti-terrorism training and assistance by the Special Air Service (SAS). The FCO sought to withhold the requested information on the basis of section 23(1) (security bodies). The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information falls within the scope of this exemption and therefore the FCO can rely on section 23(1) to withhold it. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0340 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
5 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the ICO’s register of data protection fee payers, in a specific format. The ICO withheld the relevant information it holds under section 21(1) of the FOIA as it said this information is already accessible to the complainant by other means. During the investigation the ICO identified that it holds some related information separately from the register and it released this information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The majority of the requested information is exempt information under section 21(1) of the FOIA. The ICO breached section 10(1) as it did not release other information that it holds that falls within the scope of the request within 20 working days of the request. The ICO has now released the above information and the Commissioner does not therefore require the ICO to take any further remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 21
View Information Commissioner