5 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a noise abatement order. West Berkshire Council withheld the information requested under regulation 13(1) of the EIR as it considers it to be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Berkshire Council has appropriately relied upon the EIR regulation 13(1) - personal information, to withhold the information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View West Berkshire Council
5 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a kennelling contract and related payments. The Commissioner’s decision is that Halton Borough Council incorrectly relied upon the exemptions at section 41(1) – information provided in confidence sections and section 43(2) – commercial interests to withhold the information. The council also breached section 16 - duty to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information with names, contact details, and signatures of individuals redacted on the basis of section 40(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 41; FOI 43(2)
View Halton Council
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 the use of the Union flag during the First Minister of Scotland’s, Nicola Sturgeon, trips abroad. The FCO disclosed some information but sought to withhold further information on the basis of section 28(1) (relations within the UK) and section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy). The Commissioner has concluded that these exemptions provide a basis to withhold the information in question and that for both exemptions the public interest favours withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 28; FOI 35
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
5 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the departure of a Chief Executive of the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in respect of request item [1] Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority has failed to demonstrate that section 12(1) – cost of compliance, is engaged. In respect of request item [3] the council is entitled to withhold information under section 40 – personal information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to request item [1] that does not rely upon section 12(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 40
View Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority
5 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to numbers of Down syndrome births. The East Lancashire Hospitals 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/2019/0308 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust
2 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Westacre Middle School (the School) relating to the EGM (Extraordinary Governor’s Meeting) of 5 February 2018. The School withheld the information under section 40(2) (third party personal data) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the School correctly withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the School to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
2 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding an investigation carried out into a complaint he had made. The request was refused as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Partners of the Dicconson Group Practice have correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0328 Under Appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
2 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainants requested information about a planning enforcement case involving their home. Bath and North East Somerset Council disclosed some information and said that it held no further information within scope. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council holds no further information within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with its duty under Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Bath and North East Somerset Council
2 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the transfer of arts and heritage services to Cultura London. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Harrow (“the Council”) holds no further information in the scope of the request. However, the Council has breached sections 17(1) and 17(3) - Refusal of request, as it did not provide the complainant with a refusal notice within 20 working days and did not provide any public interest arguments associated with its application of section 42 within the statutory timeframe, at the time of the initial response. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0305 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 17(3)
View Harrow Council
2 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the English Heritage Trust (the Trust) for information about filming at English Heritage properties for the television series ‘The Crown’. The Trust refused the request under the section 43(2) (commercial interests) exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) was correctly applied and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View English Heritage
1 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a noise complaint and planning/land use in respect of a piece of land near to this property. Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council (‘the Council’) applied section 14 of the FOIA to the first request and relied on the provisions of section 17(6) as the basis not to respond to the second and third requests. Following the Commissioner’s involvement the Council agreed that the requests should have been considered under the EIR as opposed to the FOIA. The Council indicated that it considered regulation 12(4)(b) to apply to two requests and 12(4)(a) to apply to all three requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to two requests and that on the balance of probabilities it does not hold any information relating to the third request and as such it applied regulation 12(4)(a) correctly. However, in failing to consider the request under the correct access regime, the Council breached regulation 11
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(b)
1 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relation to a specific report prepared by the Public Policy Institute of Wales. Cardiff University (‘the University’) provided the information requested but the complainant considered that the University held additional information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold any further recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cardiff University
1 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Hastings Borough Council (the Council) information regarding its legal costs incurred concerning the Coffey 2 report.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to discharge its section 1(1) duties by failing to identify the information held within the scope of the first request.
The Commissioner has concluded that by failing to disclose the information, which it has now provided to the complainant, within 20 working days the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA.
As the breach has been remedied, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
1 Aug 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of responses to a public consultation exercise about plans to develop an accessible pathway through Stoke Park, Bristol. The council provided the majority of the information in an anonymised form but refused to provide free text responses on the basis that Regulation 13(1) applies (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 13(1) to withhold some of the information. She also observes that some of the information is personal data relating to the requestor, and this information is therefore exempt under Regulation 5(3). However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the majority of the information is not personal data and therefore the council was not correct to apply Regulation 13 in order to withhold it. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the information which is not personal data, as outlined in the
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Bristol City Council
1 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to numbers of Down syndrome births. The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust
1 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a recruitment assessment day. Tendring District Council (the Council) denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner has found that the requested information is not held by the Council for the purposes of the FOIA by virtue of section 3(2). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Tendring District Council
1 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for information relating to agency, temporary and/or locum doctors in A&E departments. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, Cambridge University Hospitals 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 Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
1 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a number of requests to Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) for information concerning journey logs for live animal transport from within Northern Ireland. The public authority refused to comply with the requests on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA as they considered them to be vexatious. The Commissioner has concluded that the requests are vexatious and therefore DAERA are not obliged to respond to the requests by virtue of section 14(1) of FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0299 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland)
1 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for information relating to agency, temporary and/or locum doctors in A&E departments. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS 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 United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
1 Aug 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with revisions made to the ICO’s published guidance on section 36 of the FOIA. The ICO released some information. It withheld other information under section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and said that the public interest favoured maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information that the ICO has withheld under section 42(1) of the FOIA is exempt information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0298 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Information Commissioner
1 Aug 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for information relating to agency, temporary and/or locum doctors in A&E departments. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, Imperial College Healthcare NHS 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 Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
31 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Probation Board Northern Ireland (‘PBNI’) relating to the transfer of offenders from Northern Ireland to England and Wales. The PBNI disclosed some information to the complainant, stated that it did not hold information in relation to part of the complainant’s request, and applied section 12(1) of the FOIA in relation to the other part of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the PBNI has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request and therefore requires no steps to be taken. In respect of the information not held, the Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the PBNI does not hold any further information within the scope of the relevant part of the complainant’s request other than that which has already been provided to him.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12
View Probation Board for Northern Ireland
31 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding financial assessments of local authorities. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) refused the request under the exemption for prejudice to commercial interests (section 43(2)). During the Commissioner’s investigation MHCLG additionally relied on exemptions in section 36 to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHCLG has correctly withheld the information under section 36(2)(b) and section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 36(2)(c)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
31 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants have requested information from the School in relation to a specific Duke of Edinburgh expedition in which students and teachers from the School participated. The School disclosed some information to the complainants and refused to disclose some information or disclosed it with redactions, citing section 40(2) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. It stated that it did not hold the remaining information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information and that it has complied with Section 1 of the FOIA as it has disclosed all information it holds within the scope of the complainants’ request save for that withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
31 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from North Tyneside Council (“the Council”), all correspondence between named council officers and a sole trader. The Council provided some information, but redacted some under regulation 13 of the EIR – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 13 of the EIR to refuse to provide the information it withheld. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View North Tyneside Council
31 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to numbers of Down syndrome births. The Northern Devon Healthcare 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/2019/0307 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust
31 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Leicestershire Police seeking information concerning the use of webcams in blackmail crimes. Leicestershire Police failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Leicestershire Police to provide a response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Leicestershire Police
31 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Cumbria Police seeking information concerning the use of webcams in blackmail crimes. Cumbria Police failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Cumbria Police to provide a response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cumbria Constabulary
31 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to City of London Police seeking information concerning the use of webcams in blackmail crimes. City of London Police failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires City of London Police to provide a response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View City of London Police
31 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a hotel. Brighton and Hove City Council (the council) provided some of the requested information and advised that other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information and that the council holds no further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
31 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant argued further information within the scope of the request was held at internal review and LB Camden denied holding it. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, LB Camden is correct when it says that holds no further information within the scope of the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Camden Council
31 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to an independent investigation that was commissioned to look at planning issues connected with a school. Cheshire West and Chester Council (the council) refused the request relying on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR as it considered it was Manifestly Unreasonable. The council also sought to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – Course of justice and Legal professional privilege - to refuse this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is engaged to the requested information and therefore did not go on to consider regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner also found that the council breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR as it provided its refusal notice outside the required 20 working days. As the council has responded and found that the information is exempt from disclosure, the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
31 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from North Yorkshire County Council (“the Council”) relating to certain individuals who submitted evidence forms about the use of a bridleway near Thornton-in-Craven. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly redacted the personal details of the individuals under regulation 13 of the EIR. However, the Council incorrectly redacted the dates on which the forms were signed, since this is not personal data within the definition at section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). The Council also failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, and failed to carry out a reconsideration when asked (known as an internal review) within 40 working days. It therefore breached regulations 5(2) and 11(2) of the EIR respectively. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose that part of the relevant forms which shows the dates of signature.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
View North Yorkshire County Council
31 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Sussex Police seeking information relating to the force’s criminal investigations of the company Countyline. Sussex Police has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to provide a response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sussex Police
31 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant, on behalf of the University and College Union at Havering College of Further and Higher Education (“the College”), requested information from the College about a former senior employee’s termination of employment. The College provided him with part of the requested information, but withheld part under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has correctly withheld part of the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the College to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
30 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to expenses claimed by the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Finance. The Department relied on section 22 of the FOIA to refuse the request, but the Commissioner’s decision is that the request as submitted was not clear, and the Department failed to request clarification from the complainant. Therefore the Commissioner has not made a decision with regard to section 22, although she finds that the Department failed to comply with section 1(1)(a), section 10(1) and section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Department to clarify the scope of the request and issue a fresh response.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department of Finance
30 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the management of personal information during the execution of a search warrant from Humberside Police (“HP”). HP provided some information and maintained that further information was not held. During the Commissioner’s investigation HP identified a document which had not previously been provided to the complainant. The Commissioner requires HP to disclose this document. In failing to disclose it within 20 working days HP has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA.
In respect of any further information which may be held, the Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, no further information is held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
30 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested certain PREM files (Prime Ministerial correspondence files) relating to the Lockerbie bombing. The Cabinet Office, after some delay, refused to provide this information citing the exemptions at section 23 (security bodies), section 24 (national security), section 27 (international relations) and section 31 (law enforcement) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 31 as its basis for withholding the requested information. In failing to provide a timely response, the Cabinet Office contravened its obligation under section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31
View Cabinet Office
29 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police’s role as Service Director for the College of Policing’s Strategic Command Course. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire (OPCC) denied holding some information within the scope of the request. It disclosed some information but refused to provide the remainder, citing section 40 (personal information) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner investigated the OPCC’s application of sections 40(1) and 40(2). She also considered whether, on the balance of probabilities, it held further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OPCC correctly applied the provisions of section 40(1) to withhold the information withheld by virtue of that exemption. She also concluded that the OPCC correctly applied the provisions of section 40(2) to withhold the information withheld by virtue of that exemption. She determined that,
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
29 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a parking permit scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Haringey holds no further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Haringey Council
29 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of tenders and contracts in respect of the provision of fresh and frozen meat to Wales NHS. The Welsh Government provided some information in respect of tenders but informed the complainant that it did not hold information relating to the contracts. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. However, its failure to provide appropriate advice and assistance means that it has breached section 16. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Welsh Government
26 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to proposed Cullompton Relief Road options. Mid Devon District Council initially withheld the requested information but subsequently disclosed information during an investigation by the Commissioner. The complainant has disputed the public authority’s confirmation that all relevant held information has been provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that Mid Devon District Council has disclosed all the relevant information it holds and complied with regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Mid Devon District Council
26 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking details of any secondary employment undertaken by the Heads of British diplomatic missions. The FCO refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA. However, it breached section 17(1) of FOIA by falling to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 17
26 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on all financial transactions over £25,000. The University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) refused the request on the basis of section 31(1)(a)exemption, the prevention and detection of crime and section 43(2), commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has demonstrated that sections 31 and 43 are engaged but that the public interest does not favour maintaining the exemptions. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 43
View University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
26 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about its annual maintenance spend from the Canal & River Trust (“CRT”). CRT initially provided some information that it believed met the scope of the request. When the complainant explained that it did not fulfil his request, CRT stated that it did not hold the requested information and that to provide it would be time-consuming. Although it subsequently provided several further responses to the complainant, CRT still maintained that it did not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that CRT did hold the information that it stated was not held. CRT breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA by not confirming whether it held the requested information within the statutory time limit and it breached section 1(1)(b) as it was obliged to disclose the information at the time of the request and failed to do so. By failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days, CRT also breached sectio
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View Canal and River Trust
26 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked Bournemouth Borough Council for information about the trade use of crematoria operated by the Council. The information which the complainant seeks is the number of cremations which have taken place at the Council’s crematoria over a two year period, on a daily, weekly or monthly basis, to show which funeral directors or branch of funeral director’s undertook each funeral. Having initially refused to comply with the complainant’s request in reliance on section 12 of the FOIA, the Council determined that it should rely instead on section 43(2) – where disclosure would prejudice the Council’s and funeral directors’ commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 43(2) to the information requested by the complainant and therefore the Council is entitled to withhold that information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View BCP Council
26 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) seeking copies of audit reports concerning the ‘Palestinian Recovery and Development Program’, World Bank multi donor trust fund, along with the terms of reference for any such audits. DFID refused to provide the information falling within the scope of the request citing sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d), section 27(2) (international relations) and section 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) are not engaged, and that whilst sections 27(1)(c) and (d) are engaged the public interest favours disclosing the withheld information. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the names (and signatures) of the individuals engaged in the audits are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0293 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40
View Department for International Development
25 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to breaches of free range egg definitions over a number of years. The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) provided some information but refused to disclose the names of businesses on the basis of section 43 and 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the APHA has correctly applied the provisions of the section 43(2) exemption and the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions. She therefore requires no steps to be taken by the APHA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Animal and Plant Health Agency
25 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the tier 1 visa policy from the Home Office (“HO”). The HO told the complainant that it did not consider the request to be valid under the terms of the FOIA but provided a response ‘outside’ the provisions of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HO should have dealt with the request under the terms of the FOIA. In failing to do so it breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the HO to provide the complainant with a formal response under the terms of the FOIA. It should either disclose any recorded information held or issue a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 8
View Home Office