9 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a specific parking management scheme. London Borough of Hillingdon (the Council) provided the complainant with information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information to that already disclosed. The Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 10(1) of the Act by not complying with section 1(1)(a) within the statutory timeframe. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0167 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Hillingdon Council
9 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the Home Office Homicide Index with entries covering an 18 year period. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, initially citing sections 31 (law enforcement), 38 (health and safety) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. Following its internal review and the complainant’s modified request, the Home Office instead cited sections 14(1), (vexatious request) on the grounds that responding to the request would place a grossly oppressive burden on it and 12(1) (cost of compliance). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office advised that it wished to rely only on section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that request was vexatious and so section 14(1) applied and the Home Office was not obliged to comply with it. She also finds there was no breach of section 16(1) of FOIA (duty to provide advice and assistance) in this case. The Home Office is not required to take any steps as a result of this decis
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 16
View Home Office
9 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to disputed final decisions. The FOS refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOS was correct to apply section 12 FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner also considers that the FOS provided the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
8 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of MPs who sponsor spouse/partner passes for access to the House of Commons. The House of Commons refused to provide this citing section 40 (unlawful/unfair disclosure of personal data) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the House of Commons is entitled to rely on section 40 as its basis for withholding the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
8 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the procurement process for asylum accommodation and support services in specified regions. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, citing section 43(2) of FOIA, the exemption for commercial interests. This notice relates to part one of the request only. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) is not engaged. The Commissioner therefore requires the Home Office to disclose the information in part one of the request. The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Home Office
8 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the Office of Government Commerce (‘OGC’) Gateway Reviews on smart metering from May 2012 onwards. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS correctly considered the request under the EIR and regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications is engaged in respect of the withheld information. Nevertheless, she has decided that the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner finds BEIS in breach of regulation 11(4) for the failure to provide the complainant with its reconsideration within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose in full the Reviews of March 2015, March 2016 and November 2016 with the exception of the names of junior staff/officials. 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 c
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13(1)
View Department for Business and Trade
8 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) regarding its handling of personal data complaints. 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. As a response has now been provided the Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
5 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding allegations about Councillor conduct. The Council provided some information falling within the scope of the request but withheld the remainder citing section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that Herefordshire Council has correctly applied section 40(2) to the withheld information and is therefore not required to take any steps to comply with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0160 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Herefordshire Council
3 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested psuedonymised versions of requests for Registered Keeper’s details submitted by the London Borough of Havering over a defined period. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency is entitled to rely on Section 12 to refuse this request. However, it failed to provide adequate advice & assistance to help the complainant refine his request and thus breached Section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DVLA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide adequate advice & assistance to help the complainant refine his request within the cost limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
3 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on pre-planning discussions regarding Blackborough House between the developer and the council. The council referred the complainant to its website for some information however, it withheld other information under the exemptions in Regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) and Regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion). During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the council disclosed further information to the complainant, whilst still withholding other information. It also informed the Commissioner that it had changed its opinion and decided to apply Regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information) in place of the other two exceptions in place of the two exceptions previously quoted. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(f) to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensu
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Mid Devon District Council
3 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested detailed accounting information from the Inspiration Trust, Norwich (“the Trust”) about the Cromer Academy in Cromer, Norfolk (“the school”). The Trust originally withheld the information which it considered fell within the scope of the request under section 43(2) of the FOIA – prejudicial to commercial interests. During the course of the Commissioner’s initial investigation, it withdrew its application of section 43(2) and provided the information to the complainant. The complainant subsequently queried the Trust’s interpretation of the scope of his request. The Commissioner therefore addressed whether there was more than one objective reading of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that there was more than one objective reading of the request and that the Trust therefore breached its duty under section 16 of the FOIA to return to the complainant under section 1(3) to seek clarification of the request. In the circumstances of this case, the Commissione
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
3 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to prisoner recalls. The Parole Board ultimately confirmed that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Parole Board did not hold the requested information and it had therefore complied with the duty set out at section 1(1) (general right of access) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Parole Board
3 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning an ongoing investigation relating to data analytics. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has withheld the requested information under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA (law enforcement) and considers that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The ICO is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) to withhold the requested information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Information Commissioner
3 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a number of items of correspondence which relate to a Planning grievance which he has. The Commissioner’s decision is that Huntingdonshire District Council should have dealt with the request under the EIR, but that it was entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Huntingdonshire District Council
2 Apr 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding penalties incurred by a particular contractor. The Commissioner’s decision is that Highways England failed to issue a refusal notice, citing all the exemptions it eventually came to rely upon, within 20 working days. It therefore breached Regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14
View Highway Insurance Company Limited
2 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked the North East Procurement Organisation (“NEPO”) for recorded information concerning NEPO207 Building Construction Works Framework (2018/S 068-150309). NEOP provided the complainant with some information which is relevant to his request but withheld other information in reliance on section 43(2) of the FOIA on the grounds that would prejudice its and its Member Authorities’ commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that NEPO is entitled to withhold the information it identified for the Commissioner in its email of 25 January 2019. The Commissioner requires the NEPO to disclose to the complainant the spreadsheet it provided to the Commissioner on 25 January 2019 with the exception of the information which it redacted in reliance on section 43(2) of the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0133 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
2 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the trust to disclose whether the named individuals within a list he provided had first aid certificates on the date of each trip that was detailed in the list. He also asked for the date of when each first aid certificate had been obtained, when it was due to expire and to be provided with a copy of each certificate. The trust refused to disclose the information citing section 40(2) of the FOIA. It also stated that section 14(2) of the FOIA applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(2) of the FOIA does not apply. However, she has decided that the trust is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has found the trust in breach of section 10 of the FOIA, as it failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14(2); FOI 40
View DELTA ACADEMIES TRUST
2 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the BBC’s Crimewatch programme number 253. The BBC has refused to provide the information on the basis that it is coverd by the derogation and excluded from the FOIA. 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 the FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
1 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information associated with an energy-from-waste plant at Runcorn. The Environment Agency (EA) has relied on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR; its position being that it does not hold information in recorded form that addresses the complainant’s requests and questions. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: EA breached regulation 5(2) with regard to part 5 of the request. EA cannot rely on regulation 12(4)(a) with regard to part 1 and part 3b) of the request. EA was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) with regard to parts 2, 3a, 4, 6 and 8 of the request. The Commissioner requires the EA to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: In line with its duty under regulation 6 of the EIR (advice and assistance) the EA must clarify part 5 of the request with the complainant and then provide a response to the clarified request that complies with the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5
View Environment Agency
1 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested “the defined costs” associated with an invoice relating to an area of the road network that is maintained and improved by a particular contractor appointed by Highways England (HE). HE released some information and its position is that it does not hold the specific information requested. The complainant’s position is that the released information is not what he requested and that HE holds the specific information he requested – “the defined costs” – but is withholding it. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities HE does not hold information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request of 8 May 2018 and it has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. HE has breached section 10(1) with regard to a separate request the complainant submitted on 18 June 2018 as it has yet to comply with section 1(1) with regard to this request. The Commissioner requires HE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the leg
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View National Highways
1 Apr 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Brighton and Hove City Council (the Council) information relating to a programme of capital investment to replace old boilers. The Council provided some information and for the remainder it stated that it deems the request to be repeated, therefore refused to provide the information requested citing section 14(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly applied section 14(2) of the FOIA when it refused to respond to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response addressing the first and second part of the information request of 14 August 2018. 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(2)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
1 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the expenses claimed by a named police officer. Hampshire Constabulary refused to disclose the information on the grounds that it was exempt under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on the exemption to refuse the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0135 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
1 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about cases heard by a particular judge. The Ministry of Justice (‘the MoJ’) confirmed that it held the information but that it was exempt from disclosure under section 32 (court records) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 32 to withhold the information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0129 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
1 Apr 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to children being recruited as Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS). Kent Police refused to confirm or deny holding the requested information. It cited multiple exemptions, namely sections 23(5) (Information supplied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies), 24(2) (National Security), 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities), 31(3) (Law Enforcement), 38(2) (Health and Safety) and 40(5) (Personal Information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated Kent Police’s application of section 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30(3) of the FOIA is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Accordingly, Kent Police was entitled to rely on section 30(3) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Kent Police
29 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for a copy of its Information Asset Register and a list of cost codes issued by the department. The Cabinet Office disclosed the list of cost codes but sought to withheld the Information Asset Register on the basis of section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Information Asset Register is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 31(1)(a) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Cabinet Office
29 Mar 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the results of an investigation by the Standards and Testing Agency (STA) into allegations of maladministration at a Primary School. The complainant also asked for any communications, documents or notes relating to the results and investigation. The STA identified relevant information and sought to withhold this under section 36(2), 41 and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the STA has correctly withheld the majority of the information under section 36(2)(b) and (c) of the FOIA but in the case of one letter finds the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner considered if section 41 could be applied to withhold this letter and concluded the exemption was not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information from ‘letter to close the investigation’ with appropriate redactions made for any personal data.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 41
View Department for Education
29 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about all occasions between 15 August 2015 and 16 August 2018 when Heskin Parish Council (“the Council”), its employees or Councillors have breached or not fully complied with legislation. Additionally, the complainant has requested information regarding the Parish Clerk’s qualifications. 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
29 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the suppressed numbers from the disclosed information for cancelled operations. Barts Health NHS Trust (the Trust) refused to provide the suppressed numbers citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has incorrectly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the 3 suppressed numbers from 2015/16 and 2016/17 for the cancelled operations for the categories ‘no X-ray’ and ‘Unknown’. 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 40
View Barts Health NHS Trust
29 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the City of London Police relating to Action Fraud. The Commissioner’s decision is that the City of London Police has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the City of London Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View City of London Police
29 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to unlawful foxhunting in Cumbria. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cumbria 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
View Cumbria Constabulary
29 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary (Welsh)
Mae'r achwynydd wedi gofyn am ddisgrifiad swydd Cydlynydd Cymraeg Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Wrecsam. Yn wreiddiol, gwrthododd y Cyngor y cais ar sail adran 40(2) o’r Ddeddf, ond fe’i datgelodd yn llawn yn ystod ymchwiliad y Comisiynydd. Penderfyniad y Comisiynydd yw bod Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Wrecsam, drwy fethu rhoi’r wybodaeth o fewn yr amserlenni angenrheidiol, wedi torri adran 10 o’r Ddeddf. Gan fod yr wybodaeth wedi’i darparu bellach, nid yw’r Comisiynydd yn gofyn i'r awdurdod cyhoeddus gymryd unrhyw gamau.
Summary (English)
The complainant has requested the job description of Wrexham County Borough Council’s Welsh Language Co-ordinator. The Council originally refused the request on the basis of section 40(2) of the FOIA, but disclosed it in full during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to provide the information within the required timescal
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Wrexham County Borough Council
29 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of an officer report which recommends the non-enforcement of a planning condition relating to the stopping up of a footpath. The council applied Regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply the exception to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
29 Mar 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked City of York Council to confirm what ‘rules’ member of the planning committee adhere to […] with regard to discussing planning applications. The Commissioner has satisfied herself that the Council holds no such ‘rules’, and because the complainant already knew that fact when he made his request, the Council was entitled to refuse his request in reliance on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council has contravened Regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to review its decision to apply Regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(1)
View York City Council
29 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested work plan information for the Government’s decision whether or not to proceed with the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon project. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) withheld the requested information under Regulations 12(4)(d)(material in the course of completion) and 12(4)(e)(internal communications) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Commissioner considers that all of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure under Regulation 12(4)(e) and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. No steps are required by the public authority.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Department for Business and Trade
29 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the number of complaints to the Environment Agency per anonymous household adjacent to a recycling site. The Environment agency refused to disclose the requested information under section 13 EIR. The Commissioner considers that the Environment Agency incorrectly applied regulation 13 EIR in this case. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the number of complaints per anonymous household.
Exemptions cited: FOI 13
View Environment Agency
29 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a Principal Inspection Report. The Canal and River Trust has responded to the request. However, the complainant is unhappy that the Canal and River Trust did not provide a response to the request within the time period stipulated in regulation 5(2) of the EIR (20 working days). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Canal and River Trust failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breach regulation 5(2) of the EIR. Since the request has now been responded to, the Commissioner does not require the Canal and River Trust to take any steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Canal and River Trust
29 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report produced by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) into the North Devon Hospital’s maternity unit. Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust (the trust) refused to disclose the information citing sections 36(2)(b) and (c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 36(2)(b) of the FOIA and the public interest rests in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0136 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust
29 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to working groups established by the UK Government and various States to support post-Brexit trade negotiations. The Department for International Trade (DIT) disclosed some information and refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 27 (prejudice to international relations), section 35 (formulation or development of government policy) and section 40 (third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions are engaged in respect of the withheld information, and the public interest in maintaining the exemptions cited outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0154 allowed in part. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal UA-2020-000324-GIA Formerly GIA/1640/2020 UT Appeal Allowed. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal UA-202-00325-GIA (Formerly GIA1644/2020) UT Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 35; FOI 40
View Department for International Trade
29 Mar 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”) relating to the proposed development of an area known as Lion Farm Fields. The council withheld some of the information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, later accepting that it was subject to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The council relied on the regulations at 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e), 6(1)(b) and 13(1) to withhold the information. The council also stated that it did not hold some of the information. The Commissioner is not persuaded that the exceptions at regulation 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e), 6(1)(b) and 13(1)(in part) are engaged. She has however decided that, on the balance of probability, there is no further information held by the council. By failing to consider the request under the EIR, the council breached the requirement at regulation 14. The council also breached regulation 5(2) by disclosing some information beyond the statutory timeframe and regulation 11(4)
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13(1); EIR 14; EIR 5(2); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Sandwell Council
29 Mar 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any information from Guildford Borough Council (“the Council”), exchanged between a group of named people, containing the words ‘livery’ and ‘meeting’ and dated between 1 March 2015 to 31 December 2015. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore, the Council was entitled to rely on Section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. However, as the Council did not respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days, section 10 of the FOIA has been breached. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0152 Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Guildford Borough Council
29 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) for its Information Asset Register and a list of cost codes issued by the department. The DCMS initially withheld all of this information on the basis of section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) and part of it on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The DCMS subsequently disclosed the list of costs codes in full and a redacted version of the Information Asset Register. The Commissioner has concluded that the information redacted from the Information Asset Register is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 31(1)(a) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining this exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
28 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a recall petition. The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland refused the request, citing the exemption for prohibitions on disclosure (section 44(1)(a)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
28 Mar 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants have requested from the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) information consisting of correspondence between the CCMS’s Corporate Information and Communications Officer and various third parties. CCMS provided a partial response to the complainants.
The Commissioner’s decision is that CCMS has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to provide a response to parts 1 to 4 of the request, within the required timeframe; and section 1 by failing to provide a response to part 5 of the request.
The Commissioner requires CCMS to provide a response to the complainants in relation to part 5 of their information request.
CCMS 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 1; FOI 10
View Council for Catholic Maintained Schools
28 Mar 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested staff organograms for all Commissioning Support Units (CSU’s) including current NHS pay bands. NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) initially refused the request on the basis of section 43 and 21 of the FOIA but during the Commissioner’s investigation reconsidered the request and sought to refuse to provide the information as to do so would exceed the appropriate cost limit under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has correctly refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA and has also complied with its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA by providing advice and assistance to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View NHS England
28 Mar 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report regarding an audit of the council’s planning department. Newry, Mourne and Down District Council disclosed the majority of the report but withheld some information citing the exemption at section 40(2) – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 40(2) is engaged. The Commissioner found a procedural breach of section 10 – time for compliance, and section 17 for failing to provide a refusal notice citing the council’s reliance on section 40(2) within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
28 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from East Riding of Yorkshire Council in relation to a policy change to “The Licensing Policy Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Services 2016-2019”.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10(1) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
The Council 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 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
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
28 Mar 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a meeting held between HRH the Prince of Wales and the Right Honourable Sajid Javid MP on 28 March 2017. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) disclosed some information falling within the scope of the request but withheld the remainder citing section 37(1)(aa) of the FOIA – communications with the heir to the throne and regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR - internal communications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG has correctly applied the exemption under 37(1)(aa) to the withheld information. For the information that the Ministry has applied regulation 12(4)(e) to, the exception is engaged but the public interest in disclosure outweighs that of maintaining the exception. The Commissioner also finds that the Ministry breached section 10 of the FOIA – time for compliance; and regulation 5(2) – duty to make environmental information available within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the publi
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(2); FOI 10; FOI 37
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
27 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding Alexandra Palace and Park. The London Borough of Haringey (the Council) stated that it did not hold the requested information in its own right, but on behalf of the Alexandra Park and Palace Charitable Trust (the Trust). Following the Commissioner’s intervention the Council accepted that it did in fact hold the requested information for the purposes of the FOIA and the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the request under the FOIA and the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 3(2); FOI 3
View Haringey Council
27 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Peterborough City Council’s Home to School Transport Service for 2017. The Council refused to supply the information, citing section 40 of the FOIA –personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that Peterborough City Council has not sufficiently demonstrated how the withheld information constitutes personal data and therefore section 40 is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the withheld information falling within the scope of the request, save for the personal data of staff and transport firm employees. 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 40
View Peterborough City Council
27 Mar 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about land it had purchased from Shropshire Council (the “Council”). The Council advised him that it did not hold most of the requested information but did provide him with a copy of a Compulsory Purchase Order, with some names and addresses redacted under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA. In failing to consider the request under the EIR, it breached the requirement of regulation 14 of the EIR. The Council also breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR in failing to respond within 20 working days and regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to reconsider the complainant’s representations within 40 working days.
The Commissioner finds that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 13 (personal information) of the EIR to withhold the requested information. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0107 appeal struck o
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 13; EIR 14; EIR 5
View Shropshire Council