10 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the First World War Centenary Cathedral repairs fund (the fund). The Cabinet Office refused to comply with the request under section 12 of the Act as it considered compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 12(2) of the Act to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Cabinet Office
10 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested PREM 19/898/1 Closed extracts 147 pages. TNA refused to disclose the requested information under section 37(1)(a), 40(2) and 41 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 37(1)(a) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View The National Archives
10 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a meta-request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about how a previous request he had submitted to the public authority had been handled. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it has failed to provide a valid response to the meta-request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Defence
9 May 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested all information and documents relating to a certain cricket ground and club. He has also requested all information regarding activities or plans concerning the allocation of funds within the ward which would affect the cricket club and ground from East Woodhay Parish Council (“the Council”). The Council states that 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. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council had discovered further information that the clerk had recently gained access to and that was not provided at the point of responding to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached regulation 5(1) and 9(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a fresh response to the request; and provide the complainant with ad
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 6(1)(b); EIR 9(2)
9 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Arc21 relating to a procurement process in respect of a waste management project in Northern Ireland. Arc21 disclosed some information to the complainant, however it withheld the remainder, citing sections 41 and 43 of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that Arc21 has correctly applied section 41 of the FOIA. As this applies to the entirety of the withheld information, the Commissioner did not go on to consider Arc21’s application of sections 43(1) and 43(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
9 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested figures relating to bail applications made to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) in 2016 and bail applications considered by the First-tier Tribunal Judge [name redacted] who regularly sits at [information redacted]. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(c) is not engaged. She requires the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to take disclose the figures requested in part 2 of the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0205 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(c)
View Ministry of Justice
9 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specific staff related information from the Northern Ireland Prison Service (“NIPS”) which is part of the Department of Justice (Northern Ireland) (“DoJ”). DoJ explained that it was excepted from its duty to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited section 40(5) as its basis for doing so – unlawful/unfair processing of personal data. It upheld this position at internal review. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, DoJ explained that Human Resources information was now held by the Department of Finance following a reorganisation of how certain Civil Service information is held in Northern Ireland. The Commissioner’s decision is that DoJ is the relevant public authority in this case but that it is entitled to rely on section 40(5) as its basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether it holds the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department of Justice (Northern Ireland)
9 May 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the revised tenancy agreement (the agreement) between Winthorpe with Langford Parish Council (the Council) and the Allotment Association. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information to that already disclosed. However, 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. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
9 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to decisions made about pupils moving from Year R to Year 1. Whitfield Aspen School (“the School”) released some information the complainant requested and withheld some information under Section 40(2). It stated that it did not hold any information regarding how the decisions were made. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the School has provided all the requested information which it holds and does not hold any further information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View WHITEFIELD SCHOOL
9 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested Data Protection Impact Assessments relating to audio-visual recordings. The Commissioner’s decision is that Humberside Constabulary (“the Constabulary”) 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 Humberside Police
9 May 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”) relating to internal investigation report/s about certain council officers that had resulted from an independent commissioned report that had been published on the council’s website. The council withheld the requested information under section 30 and section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly withheld this information under section 40(2). However, she also finds that the council breached section 10(1) by failing to respond to the complainant within the statutory time frame. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0182 disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View Sandwell Council
9 May 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a document and correspondence associated with Toby Young’s appointment to the Board of the Office for Students. The Department for Education (DfE) has released some information and is withholding other information under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2)(third person personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The ‘merit document’ engages the exemptions under section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(c) but the public interest favours its release. DfE is entitled to withhold the information redacted from email correspondence it released under section 40(2), but the merit document does not engage section 40(2). The Commissioner requires DfE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Release the merit document identified by the department as falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner wishes to clarify that the DfE did in fact respond
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Department for Education
9 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 regulation 12(5(a) 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 regulation 12(5)(a) to the withheld information. Therefore, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Department for Communities (Northern Ireland)
8 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested file DPP 2/1508 – ANDERSON: Murder. TNA refused to disclose the requested information under section 38(1)(a) and 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 38(1)(a) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View The National Archives
8 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the decision by the public authority to exclude the media and the public from a London Assembly meeting on knife crime in London and from the Mayor of London’s summit on the same issue. The public authority disclosed some of the requested information and withheld a number of emails relying on the exemption at section 42(1) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 42(1) FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0073 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Greater London Authority
8 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested all correspondence sent to/from the Infected Blood Policy Team at the Department for Health and Social Care during the month of October 2018.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office 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 Cabinet Office
7 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Hastings Borough Council (the Council) information comprising of documents and correspondence between the Council and Natural England regarding England Coastal Path and Ecclesbourne Glen. Following the Commissioner’s involvement, the Council responded to the request. However, the complainant remained unhappy with the overall handling of the request by the Council including the time the Council took to provide a response.
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 Hastings Borough Council
7 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the discussions and decision relating to quashing or withdrawing reports. The PHSO provided some information but maintained that legal advice was exempt under section 42 of the FOIA. The PHSO also withheld some information on the basis of section 44 and 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO has correctly applied the provisions of section 42, 44 and 40 to withhold the remaining information within the scope of the request. She requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0189 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 42; FOI 44
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
7 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the councils monitoring of windfall developments. The council provided some information however it refused other information on the basis that the exception in Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR applied. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation it also applied Regulation 12(4)(d) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(d) to the information, She has also decided that although Regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged, the public interest in the disclosure of the information outweighs that of the exceptions being maintained. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose a copy of the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e)
View Mid Sussex District Council
7 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on a number of subjects, namely: the total cost for the demolition of ‘Jacobs well’, The cost of stationery and paper purchased by the council between the years 2015-18, the number, cost and name of the professional subscriptions that the council subscribe to, the most expensive asset that the council owns and it’s worth, the biggest debt owed by the council, the biggest loan taken out by the council, the number of council buildings not in use and their cost as well as their maintenance cost. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bradford Council has breached Section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires Bradford Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Bradford Council must issue a substantive response to the outstanding parts of the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
7 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the costs incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service (‘the CPS’) in respect of a court case. The CPS disclosed some information but said that it did not hold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the CPS does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Crown Prosecution Service
3 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of Irby upon Humber Parish Council’s Child and or Young Person and Vulnerable Adult Protection Policy as well as any adoption date of the policy. The Complainant asked in the event that the Parish Council did not hold such a document, that it provided them with information relating to safety and protection of children, young people and vulnerable adults using Parish Council Services. The Commissioner’s decision is that Irby upon Humber Parish Council (the Parish Council) has breached Section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 Working days. The Commissioner requires the Parish Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Irby upon Humber Parish Council must issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
3 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Through a multi-part request the complainant has requested information associated with meetings, a tender and procurement process and the leasing of office equipment. St John’s Church School (‘the School’) has categorised the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA and has refused to comply with it. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s request is vexatious and the School is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require the School to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
3 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (“the Council”) about suitable and sufficient public liability insurance for a contract between Highways Authority and Kiely Brothers and whether the contract contained an indemnity clause. The Commissioner’s decision is that Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. As the complainant no longer requires a response, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View BCP Council
3 May 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on staff turnover, compromise agreements, disciplinary investigations, governor appointments, pupil turnover and reasons for pupil withdrawal. St. Andrew’s Primary School disclosed some information but withheld other information on the basis of section 40(2) of the FOIA. The School also refused to confirm or deny if some information was held under section 40(5B)(a)(i). During the investigation the School also clarified that any reasons for pupil withdrawal were not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School was correct to neither confirm nor deny if it held information on staff leaving with compromise agreements or settlement. The Commissioner also finds that the School does not hold information on reasons for pupil withdrawals. However, whilst the Commissioner accepts that the number of pupils withdrawn from the school roll for several school years is personal data she has not found that disclosing this would breach any of the data p
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
3 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about pregnancy related medical suspensions. Cardiff Council (‘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 Cardiff Council
3 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with public information campaigns from NHS England (‘NHSE’). NHSE released some information and has withheld the value of fees paid to particular celebrities under section 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSE is entitled to rely on section 43(2) to withhold the disputed information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require NHSE to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View NHS England
3 May 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a series of requests relating to items listed on the agendas of Parish Council meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that all four requests were vexatious and therefore Potto Parish Council was entitled to rely on section 14 of the FOIA to refuse them. However it failed to issue its refusal notices, relying on section 14, within 20 working days and thus breached section 17(5) of the FOIA in respect of each request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0178 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
2 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for a copy of a draft report. Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) initially refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Trust later cited section 21 (available by other means) as the final report had been published. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to supply any evidence to support any exemption to refuse to disclose the requested information.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the RCPCH's first draft report into the Gastroenterology Service. 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 14
View Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Trust
2 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested traffic information with regards to the tolls over the Mersey River. Halton Borough Council (the council) refused the request under section 22 of the FOIA as it stated the information was intended for future publication. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is able to rely on section 22 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0177 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
2 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a 12 part request for information relating to the costs attributable to a disciplinary investigation involving a relative of the complainant. In response, Southern Health and Social Care Trust (the Trust) stated that it had previously provided information relating to a member of staff who had been employed to carry out the investigation. It refused to provide information relating to a payment made to a barrister because it considered the information to be the barrister’s personal data. The Trust stated that it did not hold any other information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust has provided all the information it is required to within the scope of the request, and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also decided that the Trust has correctly withheld the information relating to the payment made to a barrister under section 40(
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View Southern Health and Social Care Trust
2 May 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the University of Essex (the University) and eight named individuals and organisations. The University denied holding correspondence with all but three of the named organisations. In respect of these three organisations the University provided a limited amount of its correspondence with one, from which personal data had been redacted under section 40 of the FOIA but withheld the remaining information under section 34 – parliamentary privilege. The complainant has not contested the application of section 40. In respect of the second body, it withheld the information in its entirety under section 30 – investigations and section 31 – law enforcement. It advised the complainant that it was still considering whether to disclose the information it held in respect of the third body, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The Commissioner’s decision is that whilst the University denied holding correspondence with five individuals/organ
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 30; FOI 31; FOI 34; FOI 40
View The University of Essex
2 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to supported housing. The council provided the information it held but the complainant considered the figures were inaccurate. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided the information it held relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Kingston upon Hull City Council
1 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the PSNI in relation to two specific reports known as ‘The Morton Reports.’ The PSNI has stated that it does not hold one of those reports, and that the exemption as set out in section 23(1) of the FOIA is engaged in relation to the other report.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI has correctly applied section 23(1) to the information it holds which falls within the scope of the complainant’s request. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0183 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
1 May 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about media use from West Sussex County Council (“the Council”). The Council responded to the complainant under section 1(3) of the FOIA for more information, asking her to clarify her request. Following further correspondence with the complainant, the Council considered that it was still unable to identify the requested information in order to locate it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was valid under section 8 of the FOIA. However, the Council was correct to return to the complainant for clarification under section 1(3). Furthermore, the Council complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16 of the FOIA. As there are multiple objective readings of the request, no further duty under the FOIA, other than the requirement to seek clarification of the request, has arisen and the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0166 dismissed. Information Tribunal
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View West Sussex County Council
30 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) about the Draft UK Air Quality Plan for tackling nitrogen dioxide. DEFRA disclosed some redacted materials during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, but withheld the remainder of the requested information in its entirety. The Commissioner’s decision is that DEFRA correctly withheld some information under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR – internal communications. However, DEFRA incorrectly redacted some information under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – adversely affect the course of justice. It also failed to carry out an objective reading of the request in accordance with regulation 5(1) of the EIR and consequently incorrectly redacted some information as being out of scope. DEFRA also failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, and failed to carry out a reconsideration when asked (known as an internal review) within 40 working days. It therefore breache
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(2); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
30 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) information in relation to the suspension and subsequent reinstatement of some of its staff. The Council withheld the information in its entirety under Sections 30(1) and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the requested information under Section 30(1)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also found that the Council had delayed its response to the complainant and has breached Section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0179 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 30
View Sandwell Council
30 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Council relating to a Planning Committee meeting. The Council applied section 40(2) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure of some of the information (‘the withheld information’).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the above exemption to the information not disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Mid Sussex District Council
30 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a multi-part request, the complainant has requested information associated with Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust’s mobile device policy and procedures. Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) released some information and advised that other information was in the course of being reviewed. The Trust refused to comply with five parts of the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost exceeds the appropriate limit). The complainant is dissatisfied with the Trust’s reliance on section 12(1). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Trust is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with five parts of the complainant’s request. The Trust breached section 16(1) of the FOIA as it did not consider whether it would be possible for the complainant to refine his request to bring it within the cost limit, at the time of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0180 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust
30 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information associated with particular Environment Agency (EA) staff who responded to an issue at Clayton Hall Landfill Site in 2018. EA withheld the specific information requested under regulation 13(1) of the EIR as it considers it to be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: EA is entitled to withhold the disputed information under regulation 13(1), by way of regulation 13(2A)(a).The Commissioner does not require EA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Environment Agency
30 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Charity Commission (the commission) to disclose all independent examinations of the Therfield Regulation Trust. The commission responded, confirming that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the commission does not hold the requested information. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The Charity Commission
30 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to immigration applications submitted to the Home Office. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office 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 Home Office to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
30 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a document known as the ‘Scheme of Delegation’. Staffordshire Police provided the requested Uniform Resource Locator or ‘URL’ and explained where the document could be located on its website; it denied holding a copy of the Scheme of Delegation document dating from January 2012. At internal review, the complainant raised concerns about the lack of any signature on the Scheme of Delegation; Staffordshire Police denied holding a signed copy of this document. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Staffordshire Police did not hold a Scheme of Delegation document dating from January 2012, nor did it hold a signed version of the document which is available. It therefore complied with the duty set out at section 1(1) (general right of access) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Staffordshire Police
30 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an interview panel. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) said it did not consider some of the request to fall under FOIA, but provided a response outside of the Act. For the remainder, , the MOJ ultimately provided the national figure but refused to provide location specific information, citing section 40(2), personal information of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to disclose the figure for Hampshire and Isle of Wight at part two of the request within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
30 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the implementation of electronic communications within the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and the Upper Tribunal (UT). The Commissioner’s decision is that the 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
29 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants have requested a report from Atherstone Town Council (“the Council”) regarding the ownership of their late parent’s grave. The Council refused the request, stating that it did not hold the report since it was in the possession of an individual councillor. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does hold the requested information and as such, has failed to comply with section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the complainant, which does not rely on the report not being held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
29 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the AEA Technology pension scheme (“AEAT Scheme”) and the transfer of public sector benefits into that scheme. The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) refused to comply with the request citing section 12, section 40(2) and section 21 of the FOIA as its reasons for withholding the requested information. Whilst still relying on these exemptions, the TPO later cited section 14, section 41 and section 31(1)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that TPO correctly applied section 40(2) and section 31(1)(c) to the requested information. However, she is not persuaded that TPO cited section 14 appropriately. The Commissioner does not accept that section 12 applies to part three of the request or that section 21 was correctly applied. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
Disclose any information TPO holds within the scope of parts one, two and three of the request that has b
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 14; FOI 21; FOI 31(1); FOI 40(2)
View The Pensions Ombudsman
29 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested metadata about a piece of correspondence which was sent to him. The Commissioner’s decision is that East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust is not entitled to rely on section 14 to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to the request, under FOIA, that does not rely on section 14. If and to the extent that the information is, or would be, the complainant’s own personal data, the Trust should rely on either section 40(1) or section 40(5A) to refuse it as appropriate.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust
29 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests, the complainant has requested information about the former Ashton, Leigh and Wigan Primary Care Trust’s handling of personal data, and particular allegations that may have been made against a GP at Dicconson Group Practice. The position of Wigan Borough Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) is that it holds none of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The CCG breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA with respect to request 1.2 as, on the balance of probabilities, it held relevant information at the time of the request on 22 August 2016. The Commissioner finds that this information is no longer held. The CCG complied with section 1(1)(a) with regard to request 1.1 and request 2 as, on the balance of probabilities, the CCG does not hold any related information. The Commissioner does not require the CCG to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0181 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wigan Borough Clinical Commissioning Group
29 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about entry clearance settlement applications from the Home Office (“HO”). The HO 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, the HO does hold the information that was requested. She requires the HO to either provide the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office