15 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Old Somerby Parish Council for a copy of records which relate to his concerns about the accuracy of the Council’s minutes of meetings. The records which the complainant seeks are for the period 8 November 2017 and 27 November 2017. The complainant has also asked the Council for a copy of an audio recording made by the Clerk of the Council at its meeting of 8 November 2017. The Commissioner’s decision is that Old Somerby Council breached section 1 of the FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with a copy of the recording it held at the time it received his request, or to issue an appropriate refusal notice under section 17 of the FOIA. She has also decided that the council breached section 1 of the FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with a copy of the emails which passed between councillors and its former Clerk which were generated from the date of the complainant’s request to the meeting of the Council on 13 September 2017. The Commissioner has dec
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
15 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on a proposed gondola between Thornthwaite and Whinlatter. The Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA) withheld information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the LDNPA has correctly applied the exception from disclosure at regulation 12(5)(e) to the information and the balance of the public interest favours withholding the information. No steps are therefore required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0281 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Lake District National Park Authority
12 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information pertaining to measurements taken at a nearby property including the precise make and model of the tape measure that was used. The Commissioner’s decision is that Aylesbury Vale District Council has disclosed all the information it holds within the scope of the request and has therefore discharged its duty under section 1(1) of the FOIA. However, she also finds that it failed to provide its response within 20 working days and thus breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
12 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust (the trust) proposals to implement a Wholly Owned Subsidiary Company (WOSC) and transfer certain services to it. The trust disclosed some information but refused to disclose other information citing sections 36(2)(b) and (c) and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust is entitled to withhold the remaining withheld information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
12 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests, the complainant has requested the number of graduates achieving particular grades in three MSc courses, and ethnicity information about those graduates, across two years. Birkbeck, University of London (‘Birkbeck’) released relevant information having anonymised some of it under section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal data). The complainant said he has not received all the information he requested and disputes Birkbeck’s reliance on section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Birkbeck is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold information within the scope of request 1 and request 2 as the information constitutes the personal data of third persons. Birkbeck breached section 10(1) as it did not communicate to the complainant all the information it holds that is relevant to request 1 within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require Birkbeck to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
12 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the Kype Muir Wind Farms power cable connection. Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN) initially disputed that it is a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. It has now accepted this is the case but, at the date of this notice, SPEN has not provided a response to the complainant’s requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that SPEN has contravened regulation 5(1) and regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires SPEN to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: With regard to the complainant’s correspondence to it of 19 February 2018, issue a response to the complainant’s requests - where those requests are for environmental information - that complies with the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
12 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Highways England Company Ltd (“Highways England”) relating to the assessment scores of all bidders for Lots 1-11 of the Area 13 and 14 Construction Works Framework. Highways England refused to disclose part of this information citing section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) as its reason for doing so. The Commissioner does not find that section 43(2) is engagedin relation to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information regarding part one of the request that was withheld under section 43(2) and provided to the Commissioner on a spreadsheet. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Highway Insurance Company Limited
12 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various email correspondence of five named individuals in respect of his late mother and his complaint to Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. The Health Board provided some information but refused other elements citing section 42(1) of the FOIA on the basis that it was protected by Legal Professional Privilege (LPP). The Commissioner’s decision is that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has complied with its obligations under section 1(1). However, the information withheld under section 42(1) constitutes the personal information of the complainant and is therefore exempt under section 40(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(1)
View Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
12 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS Improvement (NHSI) has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to this request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0284 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
12 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants submitted a request to the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (the Council) for copies of various electricity supplier bills for a particular property. The Council refused to disclosed the information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exemption and that in all of the circumstances of the case the public interest favours withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Barking and Dagenham Council
12 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the appointment of a chief executive. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northamptonshire County Council has disclosed all the information which it holds and has therefore complied with its duty under section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Northamptonshire County Council
11 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a presentation related to the Serious Violence Strategy from the Home Office (HO). The HO provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) is engaged but that the public interest favours disclosure of the requested information. She requires the HO to disclose the information requested at part (1) of the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0319 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
11 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Selly Park Girls’ School (‘the School’) a detailed list of maths topics that students in a particular year group will be taught. Having originally advised the complainant that it did not hold the requested information, the School’s revised position is that it holds relevant information but it is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests), and that the public interest favours withholding this information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information the school holds is exempt information under section 43(2) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. At the time of the request the School breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA as it holds information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request but advised the complainant that it did not. The School breached section 17(1) as it did not issue a valid refusal notice within 20 working days following the date of receipt of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 43
11 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland (CCNI) to disclose any communication between the CCNI and the Northern Ireland Public Service Ombudsman (NIPSO) in relation to the publication or withholding of NIPSO’s investigation report on a named individual and the CCNI. Initially, CCNI refused to confirm or deny whether it held any recorded information citing section 44(2) of the FOIA. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation the application of section 44(2) was withdrawn and CCNI confirmed that it now wished to rely on section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that CCNI is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0278 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Equality Commission for Northern Ireland
11 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to suspected illegal drug use. The South East Coast Ambulance Service 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
10 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking a copy of its information asset register (IAR). The FCO refused to disclose a copy of this on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the FCO published a version of its IAR, albeit it explained to the Commissioner that certain information had not been published as it would attract the exemptions contained at sections 24 (national security), 31 (law enforcement) and 40 (personal data) of FOIA. The complainant did not seek to dispute the application of these exemptions but continued to dispute the FCO’s original reliance on section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO was entitled to initially refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
10 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information regarding the awarding of a knighthood to Arthur C Clarke. The FCO confirmed it held information falling within the scope of the request but it withheld this on the basis of the exemptions contained at section 37(1)(b) (the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity) and section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 37(1)(b) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, she has concluded that the FCO breached section 17(3) by failing to complete its public interest considerations within a reasonable timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 37
10 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a 12 part request for information relating to the rejecting and rescinding of places on courses offered to disabled applicants. The Council of the University of Hull (the University) provided information falling within the scope of parts two, three, four and 12 of the request. The University explained that it does not hold information falling within the scope of parts one, eight, nine, 10 and 11 of the request. The University refused to confirm nor deny whether it held the information requested in parts five, six and seven of the request by virtue of section 40(5) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold the information requested in parts one, five, six and seven of the request. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10 of the FOIA, as the University failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time limits. The Commissione
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
9 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Self Evident App. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Metropolitan Police Service (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
9 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding social care payments. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham Children’s Trust failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust 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 Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS Trust
9 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a proposed development. Cotswold District Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under section 42 of the FOIA and regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cotswold District Council failed to respond to the request in time and breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 14(2), and that it correctly withheld information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(2); FOI 14(2)
View Cotswold District Council
9 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Communities (DfC) in relation to an investigation. The DfC refused to disclose the information (‘the withheld information’) citing the exemptions as set out in sections 32, 40(2), 41 and 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfC has correctly applied the above exemptions to the withheld information, therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2020/0336 no right of appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 42
9 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relation to specific planning matters. The London Borough of Southwark (the “Council”) provided some of the information, denied holding other information and argued that it was excepted from its obligation to provide the remaining information. The complainant challenged part of its response at internal review and the Council upheld its position. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council revisited its position and made further disclosure to the complainant. The complainant was dissatisfied with the extent of this disclosure and argued that further information was still held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no more information within the scope of the requests. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Southwark Council
9 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the US space programme in a two year period. The public authority refused to comply with the request relying on section 12(2) FOIA (cost of confirming or denying whether the requested information is held would exceed the appropriate limit). The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 12(2) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Cabinet Office
9 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning a code of conduct investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has correctly applied section 30(2) - investigations and proceedings, section 41(1)(a) - information provided in confidence, and section 40(2) – personal data to some of the information. However none of the exemptions apply to some of the withheld information. The Commissioner has identified that some of the withheld information is not information provided in confidence section 41; or the balance of public interest for section 30(2) favours disclosure; or is not personal data - section 40(2). Additionally the Commissioner has found that, on the balance of probabilities, the council have provided all the information within the scope of question [ii] of the request. The Commissioner requires the Birmingham City Council to take the following steps: disclose paragraphs 55,56,92,93 and 94 of the Investigation Report; disclose Annex 2 with the name
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View Birmingham City Council
8 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about all vehicles currently operated by Tyne & Wear Fire & Rescue Service (TWFRS) that are owned, leased and rented. The Commissioner’s decision is that TWFRS failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires TWFRS to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service
8 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of photographs taken at the Cabinet Meeting at Chequers on 7 July 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the Act to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of burden only. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
8 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants made an information request to the University of Nottingham (“the University”) for information about training courses attended by specific groups of staff, and about the recruitment of legal staff. The University initially refused the first part of the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, stating that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. It provided some information relating to the second part of the request. After the complainants resubmitted the first part of the request in a refined form, the University provided some information to them, but withheld some information under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. It also provided some further information relating to the second part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA is not engaged in respect of the withheld information, since it is not personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 2018. She is satisfied that, on
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17(5); FOI 40(2)
View University of Nottingham
8 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the General Medical Council (“GMC”) relating to any investigation which may have been carried out into a named doctor. The GMC stated that under section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, as to do so would disclose the personal data of a third person in breach of the first principle of the Data Protection Act 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC correctly relied on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOI to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the GMC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0272 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View GMC
8 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the funding for a swimming pool in Smethwick. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sandwell Council 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 Sandwell Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Sandwell Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sandwell Council
5 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a drainage scheme. The request was refused as Manifestly Unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that Telford & Wrekin Council has failed to demonstrate that the exception is engaged and is thus not entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (Manifestly Unreasonable) to refuse the request. She also finds that the Council’s original refusal notice failed to meet the requirements of Regulation 14 of the EIR and the Council therefore also breached that regulation. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14
View Telford and Wrekin Council
5 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about his company held by the Department for Transport (DfT), including emails between named individuals and any other information referencing him or his company. The DfT provided some information under the subject access provisions but withheld information covered by the FOIA under section 41, 42 and 43. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the DfT accepted the information previously withheld under section 41 and a small number of documents withheld under section 43 could be disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has correctly withheld two documents under the provisions of the section 42 exemption. For the information withheld under section 43; the Commissioner finds the exemption is not engaged in relation to category 2) information but the DfT has correctly engaged section 43 in relation to category 3) information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to
Exemptions cited: FOI 42; FOI 43
View Department for Transport
5 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the PHSO to disclose the name of each senior member of staff and their job title in the organisation. The PHSO disclosed the requested information for the majority, but refused to disclose the names of its in house clinical advisors citing section 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO is entitled to withhold the names of its in house clinical advisors in accordance with section 40 of the FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0250 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
5 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the University of Southampton (the University) seeking information relating to the ‘Mountbatten Archive’. The University has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University to provide a response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View University of Southampton
5 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of contracts held with the commissioners of services from two specific years. The Commissioner’s decision is that the partners of Parbold Surgery do not hold further information beyond that which has already been provided. The Commissioner does not require the Surgery to take any further steps in respect of this complaint. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0280 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
4 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the law relating to the competence and compellability of the Sovereign to give evidence in court proceedings. The Crown Prosecution Service withheld the information, citing section 42(1) (Legal professional privilege) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that although section 42(1) of the FOIA is engaged, the public interest favours disclosure.
The Commissioner requires the Crown Prosecution Service to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
The Crown Prosecution Service must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0275 allowed. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Crown Prosecution Service
4 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In this case the Information Commissioner is both the public authority which is the subject of the complaint and the regulator of the FOIA responsible for investigating the complaint. The notice will use the term Information Commissioner’s Officer (ICO) when referring the Information Commissioner as the public authority subject to the complaint and the term Commissioner will be used to refer to her as the regulator. The complainant has requested correspondence between the ICO and various parties, which in broad terms relate the ICO’s investigations into the use of data analytics for political purposes. The ICO withheld the information under the exemption provided by section 31 – law enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly applied section 31 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Information Commissioner
4 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the status of a section of road. Herefordshire Council disclosed some information, and withheld the remainder under the exceptions provided by regulations 12(5)(b), 12(5)(f), and 13. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the information under regulations 12(5)(b), 12(5)(f), and 13. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13
View Herefordshire Council
4 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various information about Middlesbrough Bus Station. Middlesbrough Council disclosed some information, and withheld the remainder under the exceptions provided by regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged but that the public interest in the disclosure of the information outweighs that of the exception being maintained, and that the Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Council has also breached the requirement of regulation 5(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: 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); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Middlesbrough Council
4 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the London Borough of Hackney. The London Borough acknowledged that request and allocated it a reference number of FOI199. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Hackney failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request to which it has allocated the reference number FOI199.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Hackney
3 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested declaration of interest form and/or NHS interests register form for four named individuals. NHS England refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that NHS England was correct to refuse to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5) FOIA.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View NHS England
3 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information regarding which army chiefs claimed the Continuity of Education Allowance and or were granted INVOLSEP, a benefit paid to service personnel in certain circumstances for undertaking service unaccompanied by their family. The MOD relied on section 40(5) (personal data) of FOIA to refuse to confirm whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has concluded that the MOD is entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Defence
3 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Wiltshire Council (the Council) information relating to a highways contract. The Council disclosed some of the information and withheld other information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld some of the information under the exception for commercial confidentiality – regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner finds that the Council initially handled the request incorrectly under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to the withheld information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Wiltshire Council
3 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking access to the file ‘FO 1030/270’ which concerned post World War Two Germany. The FCO sought to withhold the information on the basis of section 23(1) (security bodies) or, in the alternative section 24(1) (national security). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) or section 24(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
2 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for information relating to Sexual Assault Referral Centres. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England 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. Since the request has now been responded to, the Commissioner does not require NHS England to take any further steps in relation to this complaint
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
2 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a research paper he was involved in which was completed in 2012. The Commissioner’s decision is that University College London (UCL) has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner does not require UCL to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0270 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View University College London
2 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating 11 practices grouped together as [named dental group]. In particular he requested the amount paid by HSCBSO for the practice allowance and whether the practice allowance was paid at 4% or 11%. HSCBSO refused to disclose the requested information under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that HSCBSO correctly applied section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
2 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the closed file FCO 87/842/1 – Closed extracts: Folios 110, 119, 124. (From open parent piece FCO 87/842.The Commissioner’s decision is that The National Archives (TNA) has correctly applied section 37(1)(b) 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 37
View The National Archives
2 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) seeking information about security checks. The CAA confirmed that it held some information falling within the scope of the request but sought to withhold this on the basis of section 24 (national security) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CAA correctly applied section 24(1) of the FOIA to withhold information. The Commissioner does not require the CAA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Civil Aviation Authority
2 Jul 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for information relating to United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust’s (the Trust) contract with ParkingEye. 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