20 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the GMCA concerning the temporary and substantive appointments of Assistant Chief Constables (ACCs) to the Greater Manchester Police (GMP). The GMCA responded supplying some information falling within the scope of the request but refused to supply the remainder, relying on sections 40(2) – personal data and 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs, of the FOIA 2000. It also denied holding some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMCA is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) and 40(2) to withhold information, and that on the balance of probability it does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36; FOI 40(2)
View Greater Manchester Combined Authority
20 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested particular reports believed to be held by Department for Work and Pensions. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Work and Pensions held requested information at the time of the request but one requested report was latterly routinely destroyed, in accordance with its Information Management Policy. The Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to disclose the information which was held within the statutory time for compliance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
19 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a parking scheme from Surrey County Council (“SCC”). SCC refused to provide the requested information on the basis of the exemptions at sections 22(1)(information intended for future publication) and 43(2)(commercial interests) of the FOIA. It also refused to comply with one part of the request on the basis that it was not valid under the terms of section 8 (request for information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, where cited, SCC has correctly applied sections 22(1) and 43(2)of the FOIA in its response to the request. She also finds that it was correct to find that one part of the request was not valid. SCC breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time limit. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43; FOI 8
View Surrey County Council
19 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about costs incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) in relation to specified judicial review proceedings. The CPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) whether it held the requested information, citing the exemption at section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was entitled to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request by virtue of section 40(5)(a) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
19 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a Senior Investigating Officer (SIO)’s report written in connection with a case concerning alleged misconduct in public office from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to provide the requested information citing the exemptions at 30(1)(a) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a) to withhold the information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Metropolitan Police Service
19 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of all the current Restricted Zones that form part of the Channel Tunnel. The Department for Transport (DfT) disclosed the locations of the larger zones but withheld the smaller zones applying section 24(1) (National Security) and 31(1) and (32) (law enforcement – prevention and detection of crime) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT correctly applied section 24(1) of the FOIA to withhold information. The Commissioner does not require the DfT to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0224 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Department for Transport
19 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Enfield (the Council) seeking a breakdown of the cost of a quote he had received for constructing two vehicle crossovers at his property. The Council provided some of the information it held but sought to withhold a breakdown of the contractor’s costs on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Enfield Council
19 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about open space contributions. Tamworth Borough Council did not comply with the request citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR, because of the time and cost of compliance.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Tamworth Borough Council has applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR appropriately. However she considers that Tamworth Borough Council has breached regulations 9 (Advice and assistance) and 11 (Representations and reconsideration) the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require Tamworth Borough Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0251 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Tamworth Borough Council
19 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Airports National Policy Statement and Heathrow Airport Limited. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Transport (DfT) is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0257 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Department for Transport
18 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about Park Fields, Parkgate. Cheshire West and Chester Council disclosed some information but withheld other information under the exception for the course of justice – regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire West and Chester Council has correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
18 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Sandwich Rail Infrastructure Project. Kent County Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exceptions for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5(e)) and interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent County Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0254 Under Appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Kent County Council
18 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to applications and approvals for work to be carried out on a watercourse. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council disclosed some information but confirmed that it did not hold a specific receipt.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council was correct to state that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner therefore considers that Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council has not breached regulation 12(4)(a) (Information not held at the time of the request) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0246 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Sefton Council
18 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Essex County Council (“the Council”) about its decision making process and enforcement action relating to a highway encroachment case. The Council responded, providing some information but also advised that it held no further information that fell within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information that falls within the scope of what was initially requested. However, as there is no evidence to show that the Council confirmed it understood the complainant’s verbal request as it was received, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 9(1) of the EIR. Nonetheless, as the Council had provided further information in response to another request, the Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0207 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 9(1)
View Essex County Council
18 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications relating to infected blood and blood products within a specified time period. Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) had not responded to the request at the time of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to comply with its obligations under section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
18 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a particular file from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. 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; FOI 17
View Metropolitan Police Service
18 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Middlesbrough Council information in relation to a pre-planning application meeting between the Council’s planning department and Cambian PLC. The Council stated that it held no information within the scope of the request because such a meeting did not take place.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request in this case. However, by responding to the request outside of the 20 working day timeframe, the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Middlesbrough Council
18 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department for Education (DfE) to disclose a copy of its assets register. The DfE refused to comply with the request citing section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DfE to disclose the requested information to the complainant or issue a fresh response under the FOIA which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for Education
17 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made seven requests between 18 December 2018 and 3 January 2019 for information relating to ‘note and file orders’. Some of the requests were however unclear. On 14 January 2019 the ICO refused to comply with the requests under section 14(1) FOIA as it considers the requests to be vexatious. The Commissioner considers that the ICO correctly applied section 14(1)FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Information Commissioner
17 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence and information about any related investigations connected to a deceased person, from Sussex Police (“SP”). SP advised the complainant that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, SP does not hold the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Sussex Police
17 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning consultation. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (‘the Council’) refused to provide the requested information citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR on the basis the request was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to handle the request under the EIR. She finds that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the request and that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Council has complied with the requirement of regulation 9 of the EIR to provide advice and assistance. However, the Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to respond to the review request within 40 working days. As the Council has now provided a review response, it is not required to take any steps to comply with the legislation. In addition, the Council breached regulation 14(3)(b) by failing to
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(3)(b); EIR 9(1)
View Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council
17 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Translink in relation to the impact on Translink services of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union (‘Brexit’). Translink disclosed some information within the scope of the request to the complainant, however it withheld the remainder, citing the exemptions at sections 42(1) and 43(2) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that Translink has correctly applied sections 42(1) and 43(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information, therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42; FOI 43
17 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Warwickshire County Council (“the Council”) relating to local schools’ finances for the years between 2018 and 2021. The Council responded providing some information and stated that it did not hold any more information within the scope of the remainder of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. Therefore the Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken by the public authority.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Warwickshire County Council
17 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Fermanagh and Omagh District Council (“the Council”) in relation to the investigation process for the assertion of a public right of way in County Tyrone, Northern Ireland. The Council disclosed the requested information, with some information redacted under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA. In failing to consider the request under the EIR, it breached the requirement of regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 13 (personal information) of the EIR to withhold the withheld information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
17 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about looked-after children. The Commissioner’s decision is that Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council 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 Walsall Council
17 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested all contacts between a named QC and other named Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’) officers between two specified dates, and also referenced a particular individual’s case. Following clarification of the request, the CPS responded and refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held, citing section 40(5), the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision for personal information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the CPS revised its position and cited section 12(1), the cost of compliance, for some of the request, although it maintained that section 40(5) applied to the remainder. Subsequently, it advised that it wished to aggregate all four parts of the request and cited section 12(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was entitled to aggregate all parts of the request and to rely on section 12(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. She also finds that it complied with its section 16
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Crown Prosecution Service
17 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a three part request to Essex County Council relating to Planning Permission ESS/00/12/BAS for a MBT facility at land at ‘Tovi Eco Park’, Basildon. In part 1 of the request the complaint seeks correspondence between Essex County Council in its capacity as Waste Disposal Authority and Essex County Council in its capacity as Waste Planning Authority. The requested correspondence concerns an alleged breach of planning control. Having initially refused to provide this correspondence, the Council reviewed its position and subsequently disclosed it to the complainant. The Commissioner has decided that, in making its disclosure, the Council has now complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. Due to the lateness of its disclosure the Commissioner has also decided that the Council has contravened Regulation 5(2).
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Essex County Council
14 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the rules, guidance and policies used by the ‘Client Affairs’ department of Westminster City Council (‘the Council’). The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council has provided the limited information held at the time of the request.
The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps in this case to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Westminster Council
14 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested statistics regarding information requests received from the media and the general public. 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
14 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of complaint monitoring forms and the dates when these were introduced by the council. The council applied section 14 and refused the request on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse to respond further to the request. She has however decided that the council failed to comply with section 10(1) in that it did not respond to the complainant's request within the required period of time. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0252 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Leeds City Council
14 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a scoring system he believes is used by Action Fraud to determine whether reports of fraud warrant further investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the City of London Police has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the City of London Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View City of London Police
14 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested documents and correspondence regarding a BBC investigation into comments made in a WhatsApp group involving BBC staff as well as the transcripts of the messages. The BBC disclosed some of the information but withheld some information on the basis of section 40(2) and 42 of the FOIA. The complainant asked the Commissioner to consider if information had been redacted from the transcripts and disciplinary documents correctly under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has correctly applied the provisions of section 40(2) to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View BBC
13 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Belfast City Council for copies of emails and correspondence sent between Councillor Lee Reynolds and Mr Richard Cook, which are held on the Council’s email server. In particular, the complainant asked the Council for copies of emails which concern ‘Vote Leave’, ‘Constitutional Research Council’ and ‘CRC’. The Council confirmed that it holds some emails falling within the first part of the complainant’s request and also that it does not hold any emails which meet the terms the complainant specified. The Council informed the Commissioner that it now seeks to withhold the emails it holds in reliance on sections 3(2), 40(2), 41, 43, and 44 of the FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that Belfast City Council is not able to rely on section 3(2) of the FOIA in respect of the emails it holds. She finds that the Council holds those emails for its own purpose, at least in part. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council has properly applied the exemption provide
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
13 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the investigation into the death of a British citizen, Helen Smith, in Saudi Arabia in May 1979. The Crown Prosecution (CPS) disclosed some information but withheld the remainder, ultimately citing sections 31(1)(c) (law enforcement), 38(1)(a) (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated its application of sections 31 and 38. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS has demonstrated that sections 31(1)(c) and 38(1)(a) are engaged in relation to the withheld information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions. The Commissioner also found that the CPS breached section 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0213 Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31; FOI 38
View Crown Prosecution Service
13 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to building defects at Roseberry Park Hospital in Middlesbrough. The Commissioner’s decision is that Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) has correctly applied section 36(2)(c) to the withheld information. She has further determined that public interest lies in favour of maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust
13 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office seeking information it held about Operation Flavius. The FCO initially withheld all of the information falling within the scope of the request but at the internal review stage provided the complainant with some of the information in scope but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of the exemptions contained at the following sections of FOIA: section 23(1) (security bodies), or in the alternative 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(a) and (b) (defence), 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations) and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner is satisfied that the exemptions cited by the FCO provide a basis upon which it can withhold the remaining information. 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 23; FOI 24; FOI 27; FOI 40
13 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of all recorded information held by Fishburn Parish Council (“the Council”), relating to the tender process for the proposed refurbishment of the Sports Pavilion. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly relied upon section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the complainant’s request. Additionally, the Council has breached section 10 of the FOIA, as it failed to provide a response to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the part of the request that relates to the tendering process, which does not rely on section 14(1), in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
13 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Communities (DfC) in relation to the development of certain sites owned by the DfC. The DfC refused to disclose the information (‘the withheld information’) citing the exemptions as set out in sections 41, 42 and 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfC has correctly applied the exemptions as set out in sections 41 and 42 of the FOIA to the withheld information. As sections 41 and 42 cover the entirety of the withheld information, the Commissioner has not gone on to consider the DfC’s application of section 43(2) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 42
View Department for Communities (Northern Ireland)
12 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding an investigation into an allegedly corrupt relationship between a detective and a registered informant. 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 take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The MPS must issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
12 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) in relation to patients who had travelled to Cambridge to receive medical treatment within a specified time period. The HSCB disclosed some information, stated that it did not hold some of the information, and refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. Two separate requests for information were made and the Commissioner has considered these separately.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, in relation to the complainant’s first request, the HSCB has incorrectly applied the exemptions at sections 40(2) and 41. In relation to the second request, question 1 is dealt with in the first request. Regarding questions 2 and 3, the Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities HSCB does not hold the requested information. In relation to question 4 the Commissioner is satisfied that the information is exempt from disclosure un
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View SoS of Health and Social Care
12 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO)’s Security Guidance and its Security Operating Procedures. The PHSO provided a copy of the Security Operating Procedure and a limited amount of information from the Security Guidance. It withheld the rest of the information from the guidance under section 31 – law enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31 does not apply to all the information which the PHSO is continuing to withhold. By failing to communicate the information not protected by the exemption, the PHSO has breached section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information which does not engage the exemption provided by section 31. This information is identified in a confidential annex which has been provided solely to the PHSO.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
12 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Mid & East Antrim Borough Council (‘the Council’) about its attendance at a dinner hosted by Ian Paisley, MP. The Council disclosed some information and withheld the reminder, citing the exemption at section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse to disclose the names of local business people it had invited to attend the dinner as its guests. However, she found that it was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse to disclose the names of the Council employees who attended the dinner. The Commissioner also found breaches of section 1 and section 17 of the FOIA with regard to the Council’s handling of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose to the complainant the names of all Council employees who attended the dinner.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 40
12 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to committal to prison for non-payment of Council Tax. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) 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 MOJ to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
12 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the companies and organisations which were in contract or held licensed agreements with Warrenpoint Harbour Authority (the authority) during the period July 2008 to January 2018. The authority refused to disclose the information citing section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority has failed to demonstrate sufficiently that section 43 of the FOIA applies. She therefore has no alternative but to conclude that it does not apply and order disclosure. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0240 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
12 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Huntingdonshire District Council (“the Council”) about the number of call outs made to its Environmental Health Department that dealt with pests in a postcode area between 31 December 2016 and 31 December 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. Since the request has now been responded to, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Huntingdonshire District Council
12 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Gateshead Council (the Council) information in relation to usage of experimental 5G[1] technology. The Council stated that it did not hold any recorded information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Gateshead Council
12 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to the hours worked by a named council officer. The Council withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. However, the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in failing to provide a response to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
12 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the selection of guests and audience members for the Question Time and Andrew Marr programmes. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside 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
12 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on investigations relating to the use of a specific scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has appropriately relied on section 44(2) – Prohibitions on disclosure, to neither confirm or deny holding the requested information. The Commissioner does not requires HMRC to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
11 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Through a multi-part request, the complainant has requested copies of communications between Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) and the Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’). The Trust released some information and has withheld some information under section 21(1) (information already accessible to applicant), section 40(2)(third person personal data) and section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). Finally, the Trust says it does not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Trust has correctly applied section 21(1) of the FOIA to some of the information it has withheld. The Trust has correctly applied section 40(2) to some information. This information is the personal data of third persons and is exempt from release under this exemption. The Trust has correctly applied section 42(1) to some information. This information attracts legal professional privilege and the public interest favours maintainin
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40; FOI 42
View Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust
11 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of specific financial viability assessments in relation to a piece of land Folkestone & Hythe District Council is proposing to purchase. Folkestone & Hythe District Council provided some information but withheld the remainder under regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Folkestone & Hythe District Council has applied regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR appropriately.
The Commissioner does not require Folkestone & Hythe District Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Folkestone and Hythe District Council