29 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants have requested documentation from Atherstone Town Council (“the Council”) regarding the ownership of their late parent’s grave. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken by the Council.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
29 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants have requested documentation from Atherstone Town Council (“the Council”) regarding the ownership of their late parent’s grave. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 41 for the reasons outlined in this notice. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information, ensuring that any personal data is redacted under the terms of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
26 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Winsford Town Council about use by members of an assortment of different email addresses as their official council point of contact. The Commissioner’s decision is that the 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 Council to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
26 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the awarding of a feasibility study for the Elmet Greenway. The Council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR – that it was manifestly unreasonable. However the Council’s refusal failed to inform the complainant of his right to appeal the Council’s decision, and of the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council has therefore breached regulation 14(5). She requires the Council to issue a fresh refusal notice that complies fully with the regulations.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(5)
View Leeds City Council
26 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the Elmet Greenway. The Council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR – that it was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the request dated 22 May 2018 and that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 11(4) by failing to respond to the review request within 40 working days but did not breach regulation 5(2) as it provided its request response by the twentieth working day. As the Council has now provided a review response, it is not required to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2)
View Leeds City Council
25 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about datasets and data held by the DWP. The DWP relies on sections 24(2) and 31(3) of the FOIA to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP incorrectly applied sections 24(2) and 31(3). The DWP is required to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held and either disclose it or issue a fresh response compliant with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31
View Department for Work and Pensions
24 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Education Northern Ireland (the DENI) relating to an inspection carried out of Killowen Primary School, Rostrevor. The DENI disclosed some of the requested information, which consisted of the complainant’s personal data, however it refused to disclose the remainder (the withheld information) citing section 33, of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DENI has correctly applied section 33 of the FOIA to the majority of the withheld information, however there is one part of the withheld information to which it has been incorrectly applied as this constitutes the complainant’s own personal data and as such falls under section 40(1) of the FOIA. The DENI has agreed to deal with that part of the withheld information under data protection legislation. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33
View Department of Education (Northern Ireland)
24 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of minutes of meetings for various periods of time. Ammanford Town Council (‘the Council’) provided some information but the complainant alleged that it had not provided all the information held relevant to the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed additional information and stated that it did not hold minutes of some meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the requests that it has not, to date, disclosed. However, in failing to disclose the information within the statutory timescale the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
24 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a deceased officer. Staffordshire Police withheld the information citing sections 30(1)(a) and (b) (Investigations and proceedings); 31(1)(1)(g) by virtue of 31(2) (Law enforcement) and 38(1) (Health and safety) of the FOIA to some of it. Staffordshire Police also confirmed that it did not hold the remainder of the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police has applied section 38(1)(a) of the FOIA appropriately to some of the information. She also considers that Staffordshire Police is correct to state that it does not hold the remainder of the requested information. However, the Commissioner considers that Staffordshire Police has breached section 10 (Time for compliance) and section 17 (Refusal of a request) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require Staffordshire Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 38(1)(a)
View Staffordshire Police
24 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the fines issued at a particular box junction. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham failed to obtain adequate clarification of the request. She therefore finds that the London Borough breached section 16 of the FOIA in the way that it handled this request. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: contact the complainant to seek clarification of the parameters of the information which he is seeking so that it can process the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Barking and Dagenham Council
24 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the business model and financial model relating to a decision by Surrey County Council to impose car park charges. Surrey County Council disclosed some information but explained that it did not hold certain financial information and cited regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey County Council is correct to state that it does not hold the financial information in question and has therefore cited regulation 12(4)(a) appropriately. However, the Commissioner considers that Surrey County Council has breached regulation 5(2) (Duty to make available environmental information on request) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require Surrey County Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Surrey County Council
24 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In multi-part requests, the complainant has requested information from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) about the external review process associated with its handling of service complaints. PHSO released some information, relied on section 21(1) of the FOIA (information accessible to the applicant by other means) with regard to aspects of the requests and confirmed it does not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: PHSO correctly applied section 21(1) to some information it holds but incorrectly applied it to other information. PHSO breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) with regard to information it has now identified that falls within the scope of elements of request 1 and request 3 of 6 June 2018, and request 1a of 20 July 2018. On the balance of probabilities, PHSO holds no further relevant information and complied with section 1(1) with regard to the remaining parts of the complainant’s requests. The Commissioner r
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 21
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
23 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information about export licenses. The FCO initially sought to withhold all of the requested information before providing the complainant with some of it. The FCO has sought to withhold the remaining information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) (international relations), 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner has concluded that none of the exemptions cited by the FCO apply to the withheld information, with the exception of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii). However, the Commissioner has concluded that the public interest favours disclosing the information which has been withheld on the basis of that exemption. Furthermore, the Commissioner has concluded that some of the information which the FCO redacted as being out of scope of the request falls within the scope. Finally, the Commi
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 27; FOI 36; FOI 41; FOI 43
23 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the FCO seeking a copy of the ‘Wine Cellar Stock Report’. The FCO initially cited sections 21 (reasonably accessible) and 22 (information intended for future publication). At the internal review stage the FCO disclosed the ‘Wine Cellar Stock Report’ but redacted small parts of it on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
23 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from City of York Council (the Council) information related to procurement “low risk” contracts above £30,000 and below £100,000. The Council refused to comply with the complainant’s request relying on section 21 as it considered the information requested to be reasonably accessible to the complainant.
The Commissioner’s view is that the complainant’s request was not clear since there was more than one objective reading of the request, therefore the Council was under an obligation under section 16(1) of the FOIA to contact the complainant under section 1(3) to seek clarification of the request. In failing to do so, the Council breached section 16(1) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Council to write to the complainant seeking clarification of the request in relation to “date and responsible staffer” and “entire financial year”.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View York City Council
23 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for a copy of the document ‘Public order capability and capacity assessment of Sri Lanka Police Service’ which reported the findings of an assessment Police Scotland undertook in 2015. The FCO sought to withhold the document on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d), 27(2) (international relations) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
23 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of the training and qualifications of named individuals involved in an investigation considering concerns about medical practitioners. Aneurin Bevan University Health Board refused the request on the basis of section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Aneurin Bevan University Health Board was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information. However, the Health Board’s failure to send the refusal notice until 13 July 2018, represents a breach of section 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Aneurin Bevan University Health Board
23 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information in respect of patient safety incidents referred to in the National Reporting and Learning system – NHS Improvement, June 2018 publication. Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board provided some information, but refused the remainder on the basis of section 41 FOIA as it considered it was information given in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board was entitled to rely on section 41 to withhold the disputed information. However, in failing to provide its response within the required timescales, the Health Board breached sections 10 and 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 41
View Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
23 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for information which the Commissioner considers would be his own personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that Potto Parish Council was entitled to refuse both requests, but that it failed to issue its refusal notice to either request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 17 of the FOIA. She also notes that it ought to have relied on section 40(5A) to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of either request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 40(5)
23 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested data relating to the way the Local Government & Social Government Ombudsman handles its investigations of complaints. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request could not be answered within the cost limit and therefore the LGSCO is entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0174 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
23 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Medway Council (“the Council”) regarding extracts from the “Traffic Regulation Orders,” that covers “Special” permits. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any further requested information than has already been provided. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken by the Council.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Medway Council
18 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to stray dogs. Halton Borough Council failed to respond within the statutory 20 working days prescribed by FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to communicate to the complainant all the information it held to fulfil the request within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, Halton Borough Council breached section 10(1) - time for compliance, of the FOIA. The council has now provided all the information to the complainant, therefore the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Halton Council
18 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding local planning matters including a copy of a planning report. Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council clarified one part of the request with the complainant before providing a copy of the report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council complied with the requirements of EIR regulation 9 – advice and assistance in this respect. Although not cited by the council, the Commissioner also finds that the council complied with the requirements of regulation 12(4)(c) – requests formulated in too general a manner. However, the council breached EIR regulation 5(2) - timeframe to respond, as it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. It also breached regulation 14(2) by not providing a valid refusal notice within 20 working days and 14(3)(a) for not citing within a refusal notice the relevant exception at regulation 12(4)(c). The council also breached regulation 10(
Exemptions cited: EIR 10(1); EIR 12(4)(c); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 14(3); EIR 5(2); EIR 9
18 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a variety of statistical information and information relating to his own care. The Commissioner’s decision is that Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust does not hold some of the information within the scope of the request. Where it does hold information, it is entitled to rely upon section 21 of FOIA in the manner it has done. The Trust is entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse some sections of the request, although it should have cited section 12(2) instead of section 12(1). The Trust is also entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold some of the information within scope – although the Commissioner notes that it ought, more properly, to have relied upon section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny holding some of the information. The Commissioner also finds that the Trust failed to identify all the information it held within the scope of the request and failed to issue a refusal notice citing all the exemptions on which it later came to rely within 20 wo
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 40
View Salford Royal NHS Trust
18 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence between Peterborough City Council and Eye C of E Primary School relating to a complaint of maladministration of Key Stage 2 SATs tests. The Council disclosed some information, but withheld the remainder under section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that both section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) are engaged in respect of the Notice of Visit and that the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. In respect of the Letter of Closure, the Commissioner’s decision is that both limbs are engaged in respect of two paragraphs but she finds that the public interest favours disclosure. Neither exemption is engaged in respect of the remainder of the document. The Commissioner also finds that the Council failed to discharge its section 1(1) duties within 20 working days and failed to issue a valid refusal notice. It thus breached Sections 10 and 17 of the FOIA respectively. Th
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36
View Peterborough City Council
18 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of minutes and reports of the Essex Area Child Protection Committees. Essex County Council disclosed the majority of the information it located however it withheld some information citing the exemption at section 40(2) – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is correctly engaged for the names of officials that were redacted in Essex County Council’s response. However the council has not sufficiently demonstrated how the remaining withheld information constitutes personal data. The Commissioner also found a procedural breach of section 10 – time for compliance, and section 17 for failing to provide a refusal notice. Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: release the withheld information that is outlined for disclosure in this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View Essex County Council
17 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a variety of information about the Child Maintenance Service. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work & Pensions failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
16 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) about the reimbursement prices of bicalutamide 50mg tablets and the manufacturers and wholesalers providing data for Category M drugs. The information was initially withheld by the DHSC under section 43(2) commercial interests. At a much later date the internal review cited section 12(1) of the FOIA – the cost of compliance and withdrew its reliance on section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has not demonstrated that compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and is therefore not entitled to rely on section 12(1). The DHSC breached section 16 of the FOIA, as it failed to provide the complainant with advice and assistance in order to understand what information the complainant was seeking. The DHSC also failed to comply with section 17(5) in that it did not provide a refusal notice citing its reliance on section 12 within 20 working days of receiving the
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17(5)
View Department of Health and Social Care
16 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) about the calculation of the concessionary prices of bicalatumide 50mg tablets and the manufacturers and wholesalers that provided the relevant information. The information was initially withheld by the DHSC under section 43(2) - commercial interests. At a much later date the internal review cited section 12(1) of the FOIA – the cost of compliance and withdrew its reliance on section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has not demonstrated that compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and is therefore not entitled to rely on section 12(1). The DHSC breached section 16 of the FOIA, as it failed to provide the complainant with advice and assistance in order to understand what information the complainant was seeking. The DHSC also failed to comply with section 17(5) in that it did not provide a refusal notice citing its reliance on section 12 within 20 worki
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16; FOI 17(5)
View Department of Health and Social Care
16 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating the method by which Farm Parks are valued. The Valuation Office Agency initially refused the request as vexatious but subsequently provided some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that VOA failed to comply with its section 1(1) duties within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken in respect of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Valuation Office Agency
16 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a report into a data breach from Newcastle City Council (“the Council”). The Council stated that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to carry out an objective reading of the complainant’s request and has therefore not complied with its duty under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a response to the complainant which complies with section 1(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Newcastle City Council
15 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office (JCIO) relating to complaints of judicial misconduct. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) responded, refusing to disclose the requested information and citing the exemptions at sections 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated the MoJ’s application of section 44(1)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to find that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA by virtue of section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA).The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Ministry of Justice
12 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the Cabinet Office seeking information about the government’s Gulf Strategy. The Cabinet Office responded by stating that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of either request. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the Cabinet Office does not hold any information falling within the scope of either request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
12 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information pertaining to Thanet District Council’s review of the Port of Ramsgate and related plans for increased commercial shipping capacity following Brexit.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
Issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Thanet District Council
11 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in a Vehicle Conversion and Reconditioning Services Framework - RM956 managed by the Crown Commercial Service. The public authority disclosed some of the requested information and withheld data under the fields “CustomerName” and “Customer Invoice Date” on the basis of the exemptions at sections 31(1)(a) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold the data under the field “Customer Invoice Date” but that it was not entitled to withhold the data under the field “CustomerNames.”
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 43
View Cabinet Office
11 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on organisations that have received concessionary loans from the Education and Skills Funding Agency. The Department for Education (DfE) withheld the information under FOIA section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and 43 (commercial interests) but released the information during the Commissioner’s investigation. The complainant remains dissatisfied with the length of time it took DfE to comply with its duties under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: DfE’s response to the complainant’s request of 5 March 2018 complied with section 10(1) of the FOIA as DfE complied with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The information has now been released and the Commissioner does not require DfE to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Education
11 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a UK visa that he believed had been granted to Anwar Al-Awlaki and also about what he described as Mr Al-Awlaki’s subsequent “ban” from the UK. The Home Office would neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) whether it held the requested information, citing the exemption at section 41(2) (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was not entitled to rely on section 41(2) to issue a NCND response to the request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and either disclose any information identified or issue a refusal notice which is compliant with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Home Office
11 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the BBC associated with the journalist John Sweeney. The BBC considers that the requested information is not caught by the FOIA as it is held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and does not fall within the scope of FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
11 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to volume increases to proposed extensions and erections of dwellings. Bury Council (the council) provided a response. The complainant complained to the Commissioner that no internal review has been carried out after it was requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached regulation 11(4) of the FOIA as it has not carried out an internal review, which requires one to be completed within 40 working days following receipt of an internal review request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Conduct an internal review to the complainant’s request as required by regulation 11 of the EIR. 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 m
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4)
View Bury Council
10 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested the projected cost of the Casement Park redevelopment scheme at the time of the request. The Department for Communities refused the request in reliance on the exception at regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception is engaged, but that the public interest in maintaining that exception does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
10 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about offences of “controlling and coercive behaviour” under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (“SCA”) from the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”). The CPS disclosed some information and the complainant subsequently disputed the non-disclosure of a small amount of information which was withheld under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40 is not engaged. She requires the CPS to disclose the outcome figures at part (2) of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
10 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about prosecutions commenced under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (“PSA”) from the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”). The CPS disclosed some information and the complainant subsequently disputed the non-disclosure of a small amount of information which was withheld under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40 is not engaged. She requires the CPS to disclose the outcome figures at part (2) of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
10 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on any work carried out on the Carnegie at Herne Hill including costs information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Lambeth has appropriately applied regulation 12(4)(b) in response. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Lambeth
9 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made three requests for information with regards to emails and meetings between the planning department and other departments/ officers at East Northamptonshire Council (the council) and copies of certain rules and regulations. The council refused the requests under regulation 12(4)(b) as it considered them to be manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View West Northamptonshire Council
9 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the sale of ice-cream from vans in particular streets in the London Borough of Camden. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Camden has appropriately relied on regulation 12(4)(b) – manifestly unreasonable requests, to refuse to respond to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0163 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Camden Council
9 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a six part request to the Forestry Commission for information relating to a proposal by a company called Forest Holidays to develop a site in Mortimer Forest. The Forestry Commission withheld information from a Framework Agreement between itself and Forest Holidays, requested at part 1, under the exception provided by regulation 12(5)(e) – commercial confidentiality. It refused to provide the correspondence between named parties, requested at part 4, under regulation 12(4)(b), manifestly unreasonable, on the basis of cost and refused to provide an impact assessment produced by Forest Holidays, requested at part 6, under regulation 12(5)(f), voluntary supply of information. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Forestry Commission disclosed the information withheld from the Framework agreement requested at part 1. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(e) was not engaged in respect of the disputed information originally withheld from the Framewor
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 14; EIR 5(2); EIR 9
View Forestry Commission
9 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the CCTV at Fareham Police Station. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary 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 a response has now been provided the Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
9 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Criminal Finances Bill. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) (international relations) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it additionally cited section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated its application of sections 27 and 35. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office correctly applied section 35(1)(a) in respect of some of the withheld information. However, the Commissioner also concluded that the remaining information in the scope of the request is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27 or 35. She also found procedural breaches. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the complainant with a copy of the requested information, excluding the informatio
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 35
View Home Office
9 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (‘PSNI’). The PSNI refused to either confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing sections 30(3) and 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI has correctly applied the exemption at section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA to the requested information. As this applies to the entirety of the requested information, the Commissioner has not gone on to consider the PSNI’s application of section 30(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
9 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council for a copy of the questions used by the Council for the recruitment of a Performance and Transformation Officer which took place on 13 December 2017. The Council refused to disclose the requested information in reliance on section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA, on the grounds that disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council has correctly applied the exemption to disclosure provided by section 36(2)(c).
Exemptions cited: FOI 36