11 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Newry, Mourne & Down District Council (‘the Council’) in relation to the 2016 Firmus Energy Newry City Triathlon & 2016 Borderman Half Distance Triathlon. The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 40(2) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0271 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
11 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the notes from interviews undertaken as part of a complaints process. The Commissioner’s decision is that Fareham Borough Council has used the correct information access scheme in responding to the request and was entitled to withhold the information under section 36(2)(b) and (c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Fareham Borough Council
11 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a number of requests to the London Borough of Camden (the Council) seeking information about a particular property. It refused to respond to the requests on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA arguing that to do so would breach the appropriate cost limit. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council identified a quicker way of extracting the information and subsequently provided this to the complainant (with the exception of some third party names which were withheld on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA). The Commissioner has concluded that by failing to disclose the information which it has now provided to the complainant within 20 working days the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Camden Council
11 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with Eunoia Technologies; a company referred to in a monetary penalty notice the ICO issued to Facebook. 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 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
11 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) and information on the ICO’s complaints process. The Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’) says it does not hold some of the information requested and has directed him to where the remaining information he requested is published. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the ICO does not hold the information requested in parts 1 and 2 of the request and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The ICO has complied with section 1(1) with regard to part 3 of the request. The ICO breached section 10(1) with regard to part 3 of the request as it did not communicate the relevant information it holds to the complainant within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0243 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Information Commissioner
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
11 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a 2010 review into ICAP plc. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has withheld the requested information under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure under section 44(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require FCA to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0209 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
11 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of the Developer's Justification Statement and supporting documentation in relation to a proposed housing development in the grounds of a grade II listed building. Shropshire Council refused the request, citing the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (confidentiality of commercial information). The Commissioner’s decision is that Shropshire Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Shropshire Council
11 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted three requests to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about Reaper, an unmanned aerial vehicle. The MOD provided some information in response to request 1 but sought to withhold the remaining information in the scope of this request on the basis of section 26(1)(b) (defence) of FOIA. It applied the same exemption to withhold the information falling within the scope of request 2, and also argued that section 27(1)(a) (international relations) of FOIA applied to that information. In respect of request 3, the MOD provided the complainant with some of the information in scope but explained that it did not hold any further information, or alternatively that to locate any potentially relevant information would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that in respect of request 1 the information being withheld is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(b) of FOIA and whilst this exemption does not provide a basis t
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 26; FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
10 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the name of anyone making allegations about a post graduate diploma awarded by Belfast Cognitive Therapy Centre Ltd (BCTC). South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust (the Trust) refused to provide the name(s), citing the exemptions in section 41 of the FOIA - provided in confidence and section 40 - personal information. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not exempt under section 41 but is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0233 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
10 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a closed file. The National Archives (TNA) refused to disclose the information citing the exemptions in sections 41(1) and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 41(1) - provided in confidence to the withheld information. The Commissioner found that TNA breached section 10. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 41
View The National Archives
10 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a closed file. The National Archives (TNA) refused to disclose the information citing the exemptions in section 41(1) - information provided in confidence- and section 40(2) - personal information of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 41(1) to the majority of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose ‘The Accountant Tax Supplement’ dated 3 June 1933. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View The National Archives
10 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a closed file. The National Archives (TNA) refused to disclose the information citing the exemption in section 41(1) of the FOIA - information provided in confidence. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 41(1) to the majority of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the final 2 pages of the file IR40/4329: the Financial News article dated 11 April 1924 and the Parliamentary Question from Hansard (10 April 1924).The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View The National Archives
10 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a closed file. The National Archives (TNA) refused to disclose the information citing the exemptions in sections 41(1) and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 41(1) - provided in confidence to the withheld information. The Commissioner found that TNA breached section 10. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 41
View The National Archives
7 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested DEFRA to disclose all correspondence and communications between Michael Gove and the European Research Group (ERG). DEFRA confirmed that it considers all communications of this nature are party political, do not relate to departmental business and so are not covered by FOIA. However, it has carried out all necessary searches and no information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities DEFRA does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
7 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any declarations of interests NHS England received from specific individuals and companies named in the request. NHS England refused to confirm or deny whether this information is held under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held in accordance with section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA with the exception of the limited companies named in question 5(c) of the first set of questions and question 5(f) of the second set of questions. The Commissioner requires NHS England to disclose the information which is not exempt under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View NHS England
7 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the special advisers in the Department for Exiting the European Union (‘DExEU’). The Commissioner’s decision is that, following the disclosure of some information , DExEU has appropriately withheld the remaining information in reliance of section 40(2) – Personal information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0211 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Department for Exiting the European Union
7 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to contracts awarded to PR, marketing and lobbying agencies/companies. HS2 provided the complainant with some information but confirmed that no further information was held under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that no further information is held by HS2 other than that which has been provided to the complainant under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
7 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested several files from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the MPS to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
7 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the evidence that was considered by the Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC) as part of their decision to allow a particular academy to reduce the number of pupils it admitted. The Department for Education (DfE) has refused to provide some of the requested information under section 36 – prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(i) is engaged in respect of all the withheld information. However the public interest favours disclosing a limited amount of that information. Section 36(2)(c) has also been applied to those same pieces of, information. However the Information Commissioner finds that that exemption is not engaged. Finally the Information Commissioner finds that the DfE breached section 10 by failing to respond to the request within twenty working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information that is not covered by eithe
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36
View Department for Education
7 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a particular file from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the MPS to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
6 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a multi-part request the complainant has requested information about disciplinary processes and procedures from the University of Manchester (‘the University’). The University initially complied with some parts of the request, relied on section 40(2)(personal data) and section 42(legal professional privilege) to withhold some of the requested information and relied on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with parts of the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation the University reconsidered its position. It now considers that it should have relied on section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost exceeds the appropriate limit) and refused to comply with any part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Under section 12(1) of the FOIA the University is not obliged to comply with the complainant’s request in its entirety. At the time of the request, the University did not comply with its duty under section 16(1) to provide advice and assistance. The University breached secti
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View The University of Manchester
6 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with the Information Commissioner’s categorisation of applications for a decision under section 50(1) of the FOIA from Mr Alan Dransfield as frivolous or vexatious under section 50(2)(c). The ICO confirmed it does not hold some of the information requested. It has refused to disclose the information it does hold under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considers this to be the personal data of a third person. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the ICO does not hold information falling within the scope of part (ii) of the request and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA in respect of this part. The information falling within the scope of parts (i) and (iii) to which the ICO has applied section 40(2) is the personal data of a third person and is exempt from release under this exemption. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0227
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Information Commissioner
6 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a particular right of way. The Council stated that as it had previously provided information in response to an earlier request in 2015 it would only consider information which had been produced since the previous request. The Council provided some information and withheld other information under sections 40(2) and 42 of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council acknowledged that the request should have been considered under the EIR and disclosed some additional information. The Council maintained that the remaining information held relevant to the request was exempt under regulations 13 and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulations and 12(5)(b) and 13 to the remaining withheld information. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13
View Gwynedd Council
6 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council Local Plan. Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for material in the course of completion – regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner’s decision is that Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council has correctly withheld the information in parts 1-3 of the request under regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0236 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
6 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to specific contracts. Kirby Muxloe Parish Council (the council) provided the information it held, but the complainant considered more information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any further information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
5 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the ape trade in Africa. 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0235 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
5 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Herefordshire Council (“the Council”) relating to complaints about councillors. The Council provided some information relating to current councillors, but withheld some information relating to former councillors under the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is the personal data of the former councillors; however, it is lawful, fair and transparent to disclose it in accordance with the provisions of the GDPR. She has therefore determined that section 40(2) is not engaged with regard to the information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Herefordshire Council
5 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant has requested communications relating to complaints made to the Charity Commission about a particular charity. The Charity Commission refused to disclose the requested information under section 31(1)(g) with subsection (2)(f) and (g) and 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(f) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Charity Commission
5 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Derbyshire County Council information about the management of finances. The Council provided some information and stated other information was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council: has not issued an adequate response to part 5 of the complainant’s request; on the balance of probabilities does not hold any additional information relevant to the remainder of the request; and did not provide the complainant with a response within 20 working days, thus breaching section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the complainant with a fresh response regarding part 5 of the complainant’s request of 20 May 2018. This response must clearly state the amount of information it holds within the scope of this part; and either disclose any such information or explain why the FOIA does not require such disclosure.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Fail
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Derbyshire County Council
5 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
In two separate requests the complainant has requested information associated with particular meetings, dates and correspondence. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council (‘the Council’) has categorised both requests as manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s requests are manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) and the Council is not obliged to release the requested information. The public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Council has not complied with regulation 11(4) with regard to Request 2 as it did not provide a clear and discreet internal review decision within 40 working days of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. In order to comply with regulation 11(4), communicate to the complainant the internal review decision reference FOI/330/1718 which it has now confirmed also covers FOI/318/1
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
5 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (‘FCO’) compliance with the Recruitment Policies monitored by the Civil Service Commission (‘CSC’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the CSC has appropriately applied section 36(2)(b)(i) & (ii), 36(2)(c) and section 40(2) to withhold the requested information in points 1-4 of the request. The Commissioner does not require the CSC to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View Civil Service Commission
5 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Belfast Health and Social Care Trust (“the Trust”) relating to a particular care home, Muckamore Abbey Hospital, where there had been a review into the care of vulnerable adults with learning disabilities and mental health needs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. In not doing so, the Trust breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As the information has now been provided, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Department of Health and Social Care
5 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information in relation to the valuations of specified properties. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request relying on the exemption at section 44(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a).
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
View Valuation Office Agency
5 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
In two separate requests the complainant has requested information associated with particular meetings, dates and correspondence. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council (‘the Council’) has categorised both requests as manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s requests are manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) and the Council is not obliged to release the requested information. The public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Council has not complied with regulation 11(4) with regard to Request 2 as it did not provide a clear and discreet internal review decision within 40 working days of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. In order to comply with regulation 11(4), communicate to the complainant the internal review decision reference FOI/330/1718 which it has now confirmed also covers FOI/318/1
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b)
5 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a multi-part request relating to the contract for road maintenance between TfL and a named contractor. Ultimately TfL argued that it did not hold the information sought in requests 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10. It applied section 12 – the appropriate (cost) limit, to request 5, which it had previously refused under section 14 – vexatious, but later withdrew its application of section 12 to what the Commissioner found to be the objective interpretation of that request. TfL refused request 6, under section 43 – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority does not hold the information captured by requests 1, 2, 3 and 4. However, in respect of requests 1, 2 and 4, TfL did not clearly inform the complainant of this by the end of the internal review. This is a breach of section 1. TfL does hold information in respect of request 10, which, due to its interpretation of the request, it had originally said was not held. By not providing this informat
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View Transport for London
5 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of public messages added to Ukgovernmentdigital.slack.com during a specified four hour period. The Cabinet Office initially refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA, then claimed that it did not hold the requested information. The complainant then revised his request, but the Cabinet Office did not respond to the revised request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office ought to have responded to the revised request submitted by the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
4 Jun 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of a report about cladding used for a specified building construction. Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service (‘GMFRS’) responded with some details it held about the external wall build up but did not provide a report. At the internal review stage, GMFRS said that no further information was held other than had already been provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, GMRFS does not hold the requested report. However, she considers that the request should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations. By failing to carry out its internal review within the statutory 40 working days’ limit, GMFRS breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require GMFRS to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1)
View Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service
4 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a named individual. Devon and Cornwall Police neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information by virtue of section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Devon and Cornwall Police was entitled to rely upon section 40(5) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0216 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Devon and Cornwall Police
4 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the fencing off of a particular area of land. Surrey Heath Borough Council refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it was manifestly unreasonable within the meaning of regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey Heath Borough Council was entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exception.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Surrey Heath Borough Council
3 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about meetings held by the ‘Kent Planning Officers Group’. Folkestone and Hythe District Council informed the complainant that it could make the information available subject to a charge of £375.00, in accordance with regulation 8 of the EIR. The Council subsequently amended the charge to £325.00 during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached regulation 8(3) by seeking to levy an unreasonable charge for the provision of environmental information. The Council also breached regulation 8(4) by failing to notify the complainant of the sought advance payment of the charge within the required time. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the complainant that does not seek to apply a charge under regulation 8.
Exemptions cited: EIR 8
View Folkestone and Hythe District Council
3 Jun 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon Borough Council (“the Council”) in relation to a proposed redevelopment of an area within Craigavon.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not correctly applied the exception as set out in regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
To disclose a copy of the withheld information to the complainant.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0225 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
3 Jun 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about how the concessionary price of the drug bicalutamide (specifically 50 mg tablets) was calculated over the six months between October 2017 and March 2018 and other information related to Category M prices. The NHSBSA stated that some of the information was not held and withheld the remainder under sections 43(2), 41(1) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) does not hold information in relation to parts two, three and four of the request and has applied section 41(1) correctly to part one. As this applies to the whole of the requested information in part one she has not gone on to consider the application of section 43(2) or section 36(2). The Commissioner does not require the NHSBSA to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0239 disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View NHS Business Services Authority
31 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information regarding the Safeguarding Investigation Unit of Sussex Police. 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
31 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the actions taken by Sussex Police in relation to graffiti taggers. 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
31 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about costs incurred defending a High Court claim. The Commissioner’s decision is that Mouldsworth Parish Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Parish 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
30 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested evidence in support of claims by some politicians that immigrants contribute more to the British economy than they take out. The public authority refused to comply with the request relying on section 12(1) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 12(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View HM Treasury
30 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on notification of deaths and serious incidents in care facilities provided to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The CQC provided some information but withheld the date it received these notification on the basis of section 41 and 40. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CQC has correctly applied the provisions of section 41 to withhold the remaining information and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken by the CQC.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View CQC
30 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the decision or chain of decisions that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union. Department for Exiting the European Union refused to comply with the request under section 12(2) of the Act as it considered compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner ‘s decision is that Department for Exiting the European Union is entitled to rely on section 12(2) of the Act to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require Department for Exiting the European Union to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department for Exiting the European Union
29 May 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the “Windrush generation” from the Home Office (the “HO”). The HO would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information citing the cost limit at section 12(2) of the FOIA as its reason for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HO was entitled to rely on section 12(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information. She also finds that the HO breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time limit and section 16(1) by failing to give adequate advice and assistance. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office