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 partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted 11 requests over a period of five months, most of which related to council policies on land usage. The London Borough of Bromley relied on section 17(6) of the FOIA to refuse all 11 requests without issuing refusal notices. The Commissioner’s decision is that all 11 requests were vexatious. The London Borough was entitled to rely on section 17(6) to refuse two of the requests. The remaining nine requests should have been dealt with under the EIR but, as the requests were vexatious, the London Borough would have been entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (Manifestly Unreasonable) to refuse them. However, the London Borough should have issued refusal notices in each case. The Commissioner therefore finds that the London Borough breached Regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14; FOI 17(6)
View Bromley Council
1 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Infrastructure (‘DfI’) in relation to service changes relevant to the provision of public transport. The DfI disclosed some information to the complainant, withheld some information under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR and stated that it did not hold the remaining requested information.
The complainant has made no complaint to the Commissioner in respect of regulation 12(5)(e). In relation to the other parts of the requests raised in internal review, i.e. 1), 2(a) and 2(d), the Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the DfI does not hold information within the scope of these. Therefore, the DfI was entitled to refuse parts 1), 2(a) and 2(d) of the complainant’s requests under regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, however it incorrectly refused part 2(f) under that regulation and in that respect has not complied with its duties under regulation 5(1) of the EIR.
The Commissioner requires the DfI to t
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(1)
View Department for Infrastructure (Northern Ireland)
1 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (“Defra”) about a multi-agency working group looking at issues around unlicensed moored houseboats. Defra responded and provided some of the requested information but withheld some of it under section 35(1)(a) and section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra was correct in relying on section 35(1)(a) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
1 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the closed extract listed as FCO 57/769/1 held by The National Archives (TNA). TNA withheld the information, citing section 40(2) and 41(1) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has not gone on to consider the application of section 41 of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10 of the FOIA, as TNA failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time limits. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View The National Archives
1 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested access to the closed extracts from the open parent file FO/800/847 - Duke of Windsor. The National Archives (TNA) withheld the information on the basis of the exemption at section 37(1)(a) of FOIA - communications with or on behalf of the Sovereign. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA was entitled to withhold the information on the basis of the exemption at section 37(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require TNA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View The National Archives
1 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about companies that instigated marketing email messages. The ICO has withheld the information under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO can rely on section 31(1)(g) to withhold the requested information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Information Commissioner
1 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested database records associated with the ICO’s decision notice process. The ICO has voluntarily released some relevant information and is withholding other relevant information it holds under section 21(1) of the FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means). The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly applied section 21(1) to the information it has withheld. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0268 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Information Commissioner
1 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested particular communications and reports from the University of Cambridge (‘the University’). The University considers the information to be exempt from disclosure under section 31(1) subsections (a), (b) and (c) (law enforcement) and section 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1) subsections (a), (b) and (c) and the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The University of Cambridge
1 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all communications between the BBC and a particular company. The BBC refused to comply with part of the request as it was for information excluded from FOIA as it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. For the remaining information it refused to disclose the requested information citing section 42(1) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC was correct to refuse to comply with the request in part because the information is excluded from FOIA as it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. She also considers that the BBC is entitled to refuse to disclose the remaining requested information under section 42(1) and 43(2) of the FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 42; FOI 43
View BBC
1 Jul 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the BBC’s lack of coverage of a current Judicial Review. The BBC said that the requested information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall within the scope of FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
1 Jul 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from West Sussex County Council information in relation to all previous requests received by the Council. The Council released some information and refused to comply with other parts of the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost exceeds the appropriate limit). The complainant is dissatisfied with the Council’s reliance on section 12(1).
The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the remaining parts of the complainant’s request; and the Council breached section 16(1) of the FOIA as it did not consider whether it would be possible for the complainant to refine his request to bring it within the cost limit, at the time of the request.
The Commissioner requires the Council to provide adequate advice & assistance to help the complainant refine his request within the cost limit.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision no
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View West Sussex County Council
28 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about emergency plans to protect children deemed to be at risk of abduction. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Brighton Hill Community School does not hold the requested information. However, it failed to inform the complainant that it did not hold the information within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
28 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested review reports associated with a named primary school. Peterborough Diocese Education Trust (‘the Trust’) said it did not hold some of the requested information and has withheld other information – a Safeguarding audit report - under section 36(2)(b) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust can rely on section 36(2)(c) to withhold the disputed information, and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View PETERBOROUGH DIOCESE EDUCATION TRUST
28 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a person who, he alleges, has caused criminal damage to his property. The Commissioner’s decision is that Huntingdonshire District Council failed to its refusal notice within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 14(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(2)
View Huntingdonshire District Council
27 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted ten information requests to Thanet District Council over a one month period. The public authority categorised all ten requests as vexatious and refused them under Section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ten requests are vexatious and that the public authority is not obliged to comply with the same. The Commissioner also found that the public authority contravened the requirements of section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA by failing to provide a response to the requests within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Thanet District Council
26 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the plans to develop the Whinlatter Mountain Centre and a feasibility study that has been commissioned to assess its economic and environmental impact. She also asked to know who has commissioned the study, who has conducted it and who it has been circulated too. The Forestry Commission (the commission) refused to disclose all information citing sections 41 and 43 of the FOIA and regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the entire request should have been considered under the EIR. With regards to the feasibility study, the feasibility cost estimate and email chain accompanying it, the Commissioner is satisfied that regulation 12(5)(e) applies and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exception. With regards to the invoices, the Commissioner has decided that the commission has failed to demonstrate sufficiently that this information is exempt from disclosure under the EIR and ther
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13
View Forestry Commission
25 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested demographic and academic information about applicants of a particular programme, as well as about those who had been offered an interview or a place. The Commissioner’s decision is that University College London (UCL) has correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit), and that it has fulfilled its statutory obligation under section 16 to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View University College London
25 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Forest of Dean District Council in relation to a specific tree preservation order. The Council provided some information and stated that other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council provided the complainant with all of the recorded information falling within the scope of the request which it holds, and has therefore complied with its obligations under regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Forest of Dean District Council
25 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a complaint report associated with a particular school, and information associated with the report. The Department for Education (DfE) has refused to either confirm or deny it holds the requested information under section 36(3) of the FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). It considers the public interest favours maintaining this position. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: DfE can rely on section 36(3) to neither confirm nor deny it holds the requested information, and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require DfE to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
25 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested reports prepared for and presented to the Rough Sleeping and Homelessness Reduction Taskforce. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) withheld the information its entirety citing section 35(1)(a) – formulation of government policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG has appropriately relied on section 35(1)(a) to withhold the requested information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
25 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a bankruptcy order for a named individual. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to provide the requested information citing section 32(1) of FOIA (court records) and section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 32(1)(c)(i) and (ii) to withhold the requested information. She does not require the MOJ to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
25 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding Sussex Police’s activities in relation to “Targeted Individuals”. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex 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 Sussex Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sussex Police
25 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information from Sussex Police relating to a football match between Brighton and Hove Albion and Crystal Palace on 28 November 2017. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex 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 Sussex Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sussex Police
25 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to authorised firearms officers’ body worn video. The Commissioner’s decision is that Humberside 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 Humberside Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Humberside Police
25 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of allegations made about The London College UCK. 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
25 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has submitted an 11-part request to the Department for Infrastructure (Northern Ireland). The complainant seeks information which concerns Planning Application LA01/2016/0335 and a variety of matters which have or might have flowed from that application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Infrastructure has contravened Regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Department for Infrastructure (Northern Ireland)
24 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about disciplinary decisions made in light of Advisory Committee Conduct Hearing recommendations. The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) confirmed that it held the requested information but maintained that it was exempt from disclosure under section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Ministry of Justice
24 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding an investigation report. Worcestershire County Council provided a redacted version of the information on the basis of the exemption at section 40(2) – personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that Worcestershire County Council correctly applied section 40(2) to the withheld information. She also finds that the council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken by the council.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Worcestershire County Council
24 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to staff compensation claims. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) refused to provide the requested information citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
24 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about court records relating to a named person. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing sections 40(5) (personal information) and 32(3) (court records etc) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated its application of section 32(3). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled, by virtue of section 32(3) of the FOIA, to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0261 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
24 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an NHS patient survey for out of hour’s dental treatment. NHS England disclosed the requested information but redacted the ‘free text’ boxes under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that NHS England incorrectly applied section 40(2) FOIA to some of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information identified in the Confidential Annex attached to this Notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View NHS England
24 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding a particular criminal investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MPS 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 Metropolitan Police Service
24 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested pensions’ related information from his employer, the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). The request was refused on the grounds that it was ‘vexatious’ in line with section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has incorrectly relied upon section 14(1) of FOIA in relation to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner therefore requires the MOJ to issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1), in accordance with the FOIA within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Justice
24 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about Sneddon Law Community Windfarm and Craigends Borehole from the British Geological Survey, which is a component part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). UKRI released some information and has withheld other information – Test Reports and correspondence – under regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR (interests of person providing the information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the disputed information is excepted from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require UKRI to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View UK Research and Innovation
24 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the introduction of Universal Credit and its effect on disabled people. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work & Pensions holds no further information within the scope of the request, but that it failed to respond to the request within 20 working days. The DWP therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA in responding to the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
24 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding land owned or leased by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council should have dealt with the request under the FOIA and that it failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. As a response has now been issued, the Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
21 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information that had been redacted in response to another individual’s Subject Access Request (SAR). The London Borough of Lambeth (“the London Borough”) refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA on the basis that the request was vexatious.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the London Borough was entitled to refuse it under section 14(1). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View London Borough of Lambeth
21 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking a list of records concerning the rendition of Abdul Hakim Belhaj. The FCO sought to withhold the information on the basis of 23(1) (security bodies) or, in the alternative section 24(1); section 40(2) (personal data); and, section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0212 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
21 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Welland and Deepings Internal Drainage Board (the board) to disclose details of any cost savings it has implemented since April 2013. The board was concerned the complainant was using a pseudonym and refused to comply with the request until the complainant provided a postal address. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was a valid request which met the requirements of section 8 of the FOIA. The board should therefore have responded to it within 20 working days. The board has since responded so no further action is required. The Commissioner has however recorded a breach of section 10 of the FOIA in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 8
21 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Liverpool City Council (“the Council”) regarding a named councillor’s trip to Indonesia. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. As a response has been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Liverpool City Council
21 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to scaffolding complaints to Lewisham Homes since its formation 11 years ago. Lewisham Homes responded to say that the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit and therefore cited section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lewisham Homes is entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse this request. However, it failed to respond within 20 working days and to provide adequate advice and assistance to help the complainant refine his request and thus breached section 16 for the lack of assistance provided and section 10 of the FOIA in respect of the late response. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide adequate advice and assistance to help the complainant refine his request within the cost limit. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in th
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
21 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the councils 5 year housing supply position relating to a committee statement on a housing application in 2017. The council said that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the council does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. She has however decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) in that it did not respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Darlington Borough Council
21 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence between the council and DEFRA regarding a contract between the council and Cory Wheelabrator which the council withdrew from in 2014. The council provided the information but withheld the names of some of the correspondents, applying Regulation 13(1) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 13(1) to withhold the information. She has however decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) in that it did not provide the information which it did disclose within 20 working days. She has also decided that the council did not comply with Regulation 11(4) in that it did not provide a review of its decision within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0262 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2)
View Norfolk County Council
21 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested all documents relating to building regulations for a specific address from Gateshead Council (“the Council”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the request as being manifestly unreasonable under the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and that the balance of the public interest lies in the exception being maintained. However, the Council breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR as it failed to issue a valid refusal notice to the complainant within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0234 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Gateshead Council
21 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for copies of correspondence between the Prime Minister, Theresa May, and The Duke of York and/or Sarah, The Duchess of York, concerning the wedding of their daughter Princess Eugenie. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemption contained at section 37(2) of FOIA, by virtue of section 37(1)(ac) which provides that information is exempt from disclosure if it relates to communications with, or on behalf of, a member of the Royal Family. It also sought to rely on section 40(5) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that section 37(2) is engaged and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
20 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the public conveniences at Adkins Lane, Smethwick and negotiations regarding their sale. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”) responded by providing information but withholding some of the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The council also stated that it did not hold some of the requested information. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council agreed that the request should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and that it wished to rely on regulation 13 for the information it had withheld. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 13 to refuse to provide the information it withheld. However, the council breached regulation 5(2) by disclosing information beyond the statutory timeframe. She does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0260 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
View Sandwell Council
20 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Pendle Borough Council (“the Council”) about financial information in relation to land and property sales, where money raised from the sales was spent and council tax funds raised for the year 2017-2018. The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Pendle Borough Council
20 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a tendering exercise undertaken to find an organisation able to develop/deliver a solution to reduce Delayed Transfer of Care. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has failed to respond to the complainant’s information request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. Since the Commissioner considers that NHS England has now responded to the request seeking clarification, she does not require NHS England to take any further steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
20 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a book maker that changed its terms and conditions of a special offer. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Gambling Commission (GC) does not hold any further information other than that which has been provided to the complainant under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0256 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Gambling Commission