28 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the information for a council employee from the electoral register. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hastings Borough Council is entitled to rely upon FOIA section 40(2) – personal information, to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Hastings Borough Council
28 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of all responses submitted to the public authority further to a consultation on how to tackle non-compliance with the off-payroll working rules (known as IR35) in the private sector. The public authority withheld the information it held within the scope of the request relying on the exemptions at sections 35(1)(a), 40(2) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(1)(a) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View HM Treasury
24 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the decision making process which the council took to allow caravans to remain parked on a field. The council disclosed some information but applied Regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) to withhold other information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Cornwall Council
24 May 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested some information from Walford Parish Council (“the Council”) regarding permission granted for the works carried out on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSI”) and the appointment of a Councillor to a non-executive director of the company managing the site. The Council responded providing some information that was dated after the request was made. The Council also states it has provided all of the information it holds and it does not hold any further information surrounding the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the information that was requested. However, by responding to the request outside of the 20 working day timeframe, the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires no further steps from the public authority.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
24 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a temporary staffing report by NHS Improvement (NHSI) into North Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust. NHSI initially refused the request on the basis of section 41, 43, 31 and 33 of the FOIA but during the investigation disclosed some information previously withheld under sections 41 and 43 but continued to withhold the remaining information under the exemptions as section 31 and 33 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSI has correctly applied the provisions of section 33 to withhold the remaining information from the report and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken by NHSI.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33
View NHS England
24 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on empty properties in the London Borough of Hackneyand the names of the owners of those properties. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”) appropriately applied the exemption contained in section 31(1)(a) FOIA – Law enforcement, to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0176 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View London Borough of Hackney
24 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about arrests made as a result of failed breathalyser tests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Chief Constable of Sussex failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Constabulary 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 Sussex Police
23 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a football match between Brighton and Hove Albion and Crystal Palace on 28 November 2017. During the Commissioner’s investigation, Sussex Police disclosed some information and withheld the remaining information citing section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(b) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(b) of the FOIA is not engaged.
The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Sussex Police 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 10; FOI 17; FOI 31
View Sussex Police
23 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) in relation to individuals who have been identified as part of certain groups. The PSNI refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing sections 24(2), 31(3) and 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA as a basis for non-confirmation or denial.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI has correctly applied section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA to the requested information. Since the Commissioner considers that this section applies to the entirety of the requested information, she has not gone on to consider the PSNI’s application of the other exemptions listed above. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
23 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) about the importation of Co-proxamol. The MHRA disclosed the information under part 1 and 2 of the request and also some of the information under part 3 but applied section 41 (Information provided in confidence) and 43 (Commercial interest) of the FOIA to withhold the names of the licenced importers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has not sufficiently demonstrated that section 41 or 43 of the FOIA is engaged in relation to the information that has been withheld under part 3 of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the licenced importers of Co-proxamol.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
23 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of the Whinlatter Mountain Centre Concept and Feasibility Study. The Lake District National Park Authority (the authority) refused to disclose the information, initially, citing section 41 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the authority decided that the request should have been considered under the EIR and advised the Commissioner that it now wished to rely on regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Lake District National Park Authority
23 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to her deceased husband. BCP council (the council), who were Bournemouth Borough Council at the time the complaint was brought to the Commissioner, after seeking clarification and sighting section 12 of the FOIA established that it did not hold information falling within the scope of the request. The council forwarded the request to the Coroner’s Office who identified information that it held. The complainant considered that the council would hold further information and the Coroner’s Office was a part of the council and that the Coroner’s Office would hold more information than what it had identified. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council located some information held by the mortuary and provided it to the complainant outside of the FOIA as it considered it would be exempt from disclosure to the general public. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Coroner’s Office is not a part of the council and so any informatio
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bournemouth Borough Council
22 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about crimes reported on the Parliamentary estate. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police 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
22 May 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a road widening scheme. Middlesbrough Council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely upon regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request, and has complied with the requirement of regulation 9 to provide advice and assistance. However, the Council disclosed some held information outside the time for compliance, and therefore breached regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2); EIR 9(1)
View Middlesbrough Council
22 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Maidstone Borough Council (the council) that relates to a potential breach of planning at a particular site in the Maidstone area. Whilst the council disclosed some information in response to the request, certain information was withheld under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. In addition, the council advised the complainant that certain information that had been requested was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to the information that has been withheld. In addition, she is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any additonal information that would fall within the scope of the request and has therefore discharged its duty under regulation 5(1). The Commissioner requires no further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Maidstone Borough Council
22 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a breach that occurred between the Wardle Lock and Stanthorne Lock, in Middlewich on 15 March 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Canal and River Trust has failed to provide a response to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Canal and River Trust respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Canal and River Trust
22 May 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Hastings Borough Council information in relation to Councillors’ and Planning Officers’ potential membership of Freemasons’ lodges. The Council provided the complainant with a link which contained the Councillors’ record of interest forms and stated that it did not hold the requested information in relation to Planning Officers.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, the Council failed to respond to the complainant’s request in relation to the Councillors’ possible affiliation with Freemasons’ lodges; and does not hold information in relation to Council’s Planning Officers’ possible affiliation with Freemasons’ lodges;
The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the complainant with a fresh response to the part of the request seeking information related to the Councillors’ possible affiliation with Freemasons’ lodges. This response must set out clearly and accurately whether the Council holds information falling within the scope of that part
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Hastings Borough Council
22 May 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council (“the Council”) for information relating to a proposal for a hotel at Ballyreagh Road, Portstewart and planning application LA01/2016/1328/F. The Council provided the complainant with information relevant to his request and withheld some information in reliance on Regulations 12(4)(e) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(e) in respect of the information it has withheld under this exception. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council is entitled to rely on Regulation 13 in respect of the names, contact details and signatures of members of its staff who hold positions below Head of Service level. The Commissioner has identified information which the Council has withheld in reliance on Regulation 13 which is either not personal data or which relates to members of staff at or above Head of Service level. The Commissioner requires the Council t
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13
22 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from West Dorset District Council (“the Council”), which has now been incorporated into the newly-restructured Dorset Council, about the procedures followed by the Council’s Housing Team when dealing with homeless people. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA – time for compliance. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West Lindsey District Council
22 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to job descriptions and person specifications for a number of roles at Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. Since the Commissioner considers that the request has now been responded to, she does not require the Trust to take any further steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
22 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the minutes of all audit committee meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. Since the Commissioner considers that the request has now been responded to, she does not require the Trust to take any further steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
22 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the log of all whistleblowing incidents kept by Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. Since the Commissioner considers that the request has now been responded to, she does not require the Trust to take any further steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
21 May 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the Department for International Development (DFID). In relation to the first request, after extending the time it needed to complete its public interest test considerations, DFID initially responded by stating that it held the information albeit it was exempt from disclosure, but at the internal review stage concluded that it did not hold any information in scope of the request. In relation to the second request DFID refused to comply with this on basis of section 12(1) (cost limit). The complainant was unhappy with the length of time taken to respond to the first request and sought to dispute the application of section 12(1) to the second request. The Commissioner has concluded that DFID is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA in relation to the second request but in respect of the first request it breached section 17(3) of FOIA by failing to complete its public interest considerations within a reasonable timeframe and also section 10(1)
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 17
View Department for International Development
21 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding training undertaken by Universal Credit claimants. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) confirmed to the complainant that it did not hold the specific information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner considers that DWP should have clarified what information the complainant was seeking under section 1(3) and has failed to provide adequate advice and assistance as required by section 16 of the Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to seek clarification from the complainant regarding which specific courses he is seeking information about. 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 contem
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
21 May 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information dating from 1997 relating to the death of British nurse Helen Smith in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in 1979. The FCO initially withheld all of the information on the basis of sections 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The FCO subsequently disclosed the requested information to the complainant, albeit with redactions made on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the majority of the information redacted is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner has concluded that a small portion of information is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2). The Commissioner has also concluded that the FCO has breached section 10(1) by failing to disclose the information which it accepts is not exempt from disclosure within 20 working days of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
21 May 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any correspondence held by the council relating to child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs over the last three years between the council, the local social services department, the Home Office, the police and local public schools. The council refused to confirm or deny whether it holds any relevant information on the basis that the exemptions in section 31 (law enforcement), and section 23 (information provided by security bodies) applied. On review it upheld its position. However, during the Commissioner's investigation the council confirmed to the complainant that it holds relevant information but applied section 12 to refuse the request (appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 12 to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Derby City Council
21 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Royal Mint for the cost of producing 1p and 2p coins in each of the last five financial years. The Royal Mint sought to withhold this information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exemption and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
21 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Cumbria Police information in relation to an incident when he was knocked off his pushbike by an individual subsequently investigated for drink driving. Cumbria Police cited Section 40(5)(b)(i) and said it would neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information was held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Cumbria Police has correctly applied Section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cumbria Constabulary
21 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Canal & River Trust (CRT) about its 2018 review of mooring agreement charges at Lisson Wide, London. Apart from providing some information in the public domain, CRT withheld most of the requested information, informing the complainant that his request was outside the scope of its obligations under the FOIA. The Commissioner has considered CRT’s response and she is satisfied, in respect of this case, that the information requested does not fall within the definition of information to which CRT has obligations under the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the CRT to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0204 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Canal and River Trust
21 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding complaints made to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in relation to court security at Wimbledon Magistrate’s Court. 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
21 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Reading Borough Council (the Council) information relating to Arthur Hill swimming pool. The Council refused the request under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not correct to apply section 43(2) to the information. The Commissioner therefore requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Disclose the information at part one of the request including the appendices to the report.
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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Reading Borough Council
21 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of complaints East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust (“the Trust”) had agreed to investigate from a particular time period. The Commissioner’s decision is the Trust has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request. The Commissioner requires the Trust to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. The Trust must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of the 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 10
21 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Communities Northern Ireland (DfC) in relation to the proposed redevelopment of Casement Park. The DfC disclosed some of the requested information to the complainant, however it refused to disclose certain information (‘the withheld information’) citing regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfC has correctly applied the exception as set out in regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e) to the withheld information. Therefore, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Department for Communities (Northern Ireland)
21 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to planning enforcement on a particular piece of land. The Commissioner’s decision is that Herefordshire Council (the Council) has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) to the complainant’s request. She finds that the public interest lies in maintaining the Council’s application of this exception. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Herefordshire Council
20 May 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a contract for new fire engines. Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service provided some information and withheld the remainder under sections 43(1) and (2) (Commercial interests) and 40(2) (Personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service also confirmed that it did not hold some of the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service has appropriately applied section 43(2) to some of the withheld information ie technical drawings. However, she does not consider that section 43(2) is engaged in relation to final evaluation scores. She also considers that DSFRS has applied section 40(2) appropriately to the personal data. The Commissioner also considers that Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service is correct to state that it does not hold some of the requested information.
However, the Commissioner considers
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service
20 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information in relation to enforcement action the public authority had pursued against the At Taqwa Trust further to alleged breaches of planning conditions. The public authority disclosed some of the information held within the scope of the request and withheld the remaining information relying on the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) EIR. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Redbridge Council
20 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from British Transport Police (‘BTP’), images of the suspects involved in the theft of his property. BTP refused the request on the grounds that section 30 (investigations and proceedings) and section 40 (personal information) of the FOIA applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that BTP was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a)(i) to refuse the request. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View British Transport Police
20 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Addingham Parish Council (the Council), relating to the exchange of correspondence between the Clerk and a Forum member concerning minutes of the Forum meeting of June 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the Council was therefore entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
17 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the contract between Dr Jefferies & Partners (the practice) and Babylon GP at Hand. The Commissioner’s decision is that the practice has correctly applied section 43(2) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
17 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a review into a contract which governed the provision of orthopaedic surgery at Chapel Allerton Hospital, entered into by Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (“the Trust”). The Trust withheld a report on the contract under section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal information) and section 41(1) of the FOIA (information provided in confidence) respectively, and also withheld a Trust review of the report under section 41(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the report is the personal data of the contributors to it; however, it is lawful, fair and transparent to disclose the report in accordance with Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR. She has therefore determined that section 40(2) does not apply to the report. She has also determined that section 41(1) does not apply to either of the withheld documents in this case. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: subject to para
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
17 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information about a particular incident with took place in Southern Rhodesia in 1932. The FCO responded by explaining that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The complainant disputed this position. The Commissioner has concluded that on the balance of probabilities the FCO does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
16 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about thefts from motor vehicles within specific geographic areas. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Chief Constable of Sussex Police failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Constabulary 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 Sussex Police
16 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the ownership of four private properties from Cambridgeshire Constabulary (“CC”). CC advised the complainant that it does not hold this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, CC does not hold the information requested. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
15 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details used in arriving at a figure for the valuations of the hereditaments in two car park locations. The Department of Finance (“DoF”) provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing section 41 (information provided in confidence) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoF is entitled for rely on section 41 as its basis for withholding the remainder of the information it holds within the scope of this request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland
15 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an inquiry being undertaken by the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland (‘the CCNI’) into a particular charity. The CCNI refused the request on the grounds that it was vexatious within the meaning of section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCNI was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. Further to this decision notice being issued, the CCNI informed the Commissioner that the decision maker and the internal reviewer were not the same person, as was suggested in paragraph 48.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Equality Commission for Northern Ireland
15 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a particular planning application. In response to this request the Council disclosed information, but the complainant disputed whether the materials disclosed amounted to everything the Council held within the scope of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Devon County Council (“the Council”) has now disclosed all the information within the scope of the request that it holds and has therefore complied with its Regulation 5(1) duty. However, the Commissioner considers that the Council failed to disclose, within 20 working days, some of the information it held. She therefore finds that the Council breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR in responding to this request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0199 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Devon County Council
14 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about an outline planning application. Harrogate Borough Council refused the request, citing the exceptions for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)), the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)) and the confidentiality of proceedings (regulation 12(5)(d)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Harrogate Borough Council has correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
10 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to completion certificates for 9 converted flats in Croydon. The public authority refused to comply with the request relying on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) EIR (manifestly unreasonable request).
The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Croydon
10 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of correspondence between a landowner or their associates and the council between specific dates. The council applied the exception in Regulation 13(5) (personal data) to neither confirm nor deny whether any information is held, and maintained its position in its review of the decision. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 13(5) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5)
View Derbyshire County Council
10 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to bids to operate the East Coast rail franchise. The Department for Transport (DfT) refused the request under the exemptions provided by section 21 – information accessible by other means, section 43(2) – commercial interests and section 44 – statutory prohibition. The complainant has not contested the application of section 21. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT is entitled to rely on sections 43(2) and 44 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43; FOI 44
View Department for Transport