6 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Communications and Marketing (CAM). The University College London (the University) says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) and is satisfied that the University met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
6 Mar 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the closed extract from the file AIR 81/1953. The request was refused by the National Archives (TNA) on the grounds of health and safety (section 38 of FOIA) and third party personal data (section 40 of FOIA). The Commissioner has found that sections 38(1) and 40 are engaged. The Commissioner found a procedural breach of section 10. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40; FOI 41
View The National Archives
6 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with a particular conference held at Trinity College, University of Cambridge (‘the University’). The University released what it said was all the relevant information that it holds, having first redacted personal data from it. The complainant considers that the University holds further information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the University complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA and holds no further recorded information that falls within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The University of Cambridge
6 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a highways contract. Leicester City Council disclosed some of the information and withheld other information under the exemption for commercial interests – section 43(2) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld the information under the exception for commercial confidentiality – regulation 12(5)(e).
The Commissioner’s decision is that Leicester City Council initially wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14 and that it failed to demonstrate that the exception in regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5(1)
View Leicester City Council
6 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specific set of correspondence between the council and the police. He also requested details of the attendees at a meeting and any notes taken at that meeting by all attending staff. The council initially withheld the information however during the course of the Commissioner's investigation it reconsidered its position and disclosed the withheld information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to comply with the requirements of section 10(1) of the Act in that it failed to provide the requested information within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
5 Mar 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant has requested information relating to “Did Not Attends” (“DNAs”). The Commissioner’s decision is that Chelsea & Westminster Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has provided all the information which it holds in respect of elements [1] and [3] of the request. In respect of element [2] it is entitled to rely on Section 12 of the FOIA to refuse to comply with this part of the request. However, the Commissioner also finds that the Trust failed to communicate information which it held and failed to issue an adequate refusal notice within 20 working days. The Trust therefore breached Sections 10 and 17 of the FOIA respectively. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0148 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 17
View Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
5 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a recycling contract. Derby City Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for commercial confidentiality – regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Derby City Council has failed to demonstrate the regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0113 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Derby City Council
5 Mar 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests the complainant has requested information from NHS Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) about an ‘Enfield Single Offer’ contract. The CCG relied on section 21(1) of the FOIA with regards to some information (information accessible to the applicant by other means); it released some information and provided links to where other relevant information is published. The complainant considers that the CCG holds further relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the CCG holds no further information falling within the scope of the requests and has now complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The CCG breached section 10(1) as it has not communicated to the complainant all the information it holds within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the CCG to take the following step to ensure it complies with the legislation: If it has not already done so, in order to comply with section 1(1)(b) of the FOIA the C
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group
5 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to child sexual exploitation. Following clarification Derby City Council (the council) provided an initial response. However, the complainant did not consider this response fulfilled his request. During the internal review, the council applied section 12 of the FOIA as it considered to provide the information would be over the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 of the FOIA is engaged and that the council was not required to provide advice and assistance, under section 16 of the FOIA, as it was found that the request could not be sufficiently refined. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0085 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Derby City Council
5 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for information relating to the closure of beds at Rothbury Community Hospital. Despite the Intervention of the Commissioner, the Department of Health and Social Care (the DHSC) has not provided a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to provide the complainant with a full response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
5 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the closed file listed as BS 28/61 held by The National Archives. The Commissioner’s decision is that The National Archives (TNA) has correctly applied section 41(1) - provided in confidence to the withheld information. The Commissioner found that TNA breached section 10. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View The National Archives
4 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a list of Disguised Remuneration Schemes held by the public authority including a breakdown to show whether it considered any of the schemes legal or illegal. The public authority withheld the requested information on the basis of the exemption at section 44(1)(a) FOIA (Prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a).
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
4 Mar 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom 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 request 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 1; FOI 10
4 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Council in relation to a commercial lease agreement. The Council disclosed the majority of the requested information to the complainant, however it withheld a small amount (‘the withheld information’) citing regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to the requested information. Therefore, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0103 struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
4 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to racism, including complaints of racial harassment and discrimination. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University of Hull (the university) was entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
4 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from North East Lincolnshire Council (the Council) information regarding the budget details for the proposed expansion of Bradley Football Development Centre. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly cited section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA as the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View North East Lincolnshire Council
4 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on correspondence and communications between the European Research Group (‘the ERG’) and Mr Stewart Jackson (Special Adviser at the time of the request) and ERG and Mr Steve Baker, at the time of the request Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for exiting the European Union. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Exiting the European Union (‘DExEU’) is not correct in its application of the exemptions at section 35 and 40 FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Disclose the sentence withheld in reliance of section 35(1)(d).
Disclose the names and official email addresses of Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords and Members of the European Parliament included in the emails determined to be in the scope of the request.
The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(d); FOI 40(2)
View Department for Exiting the European Union
4 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the interpretation of several pieces of legislation. Northumbria Police would neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information, on the grounds that doing so would exceed the appropriate cost limit set out under section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria Police was entitled to rely on section 12(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the information and that appropriate section 16(1) advice and assistance has been provided.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Northumbria Police
4 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a meeting between Lord Bridges of Headley and the Legatum Institute in April 2017. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Exiting the European Union (‘DExEU’) has appropriately relied on section 35(1)(a) to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0109 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Exiting the European Union
4 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a film commissioned by Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA).The Commissioner’s decision is that LVRPA is correct when it says the requested information is not environmental information. It therefore has no obligation to provide it under the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0101 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
1 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the disclosure of British taxpayer information provided to the US Internal Revenue Service (‘IRS’) in accordance with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (‘FATCA’). The Commissioner’s decision is that HM Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’) has appropriately relied on section 27(1)(a) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
1 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Forest Holidays Ltd (‘FHL’) associated with a development proposal in Mortimer Forest in Shropshire. FHL’s position is that it is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. It has therefore refused to respond to this request under the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that FHL is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR, as defined under regulation 2(2). She therefore upholds FHL’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2
1 Mar 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the ICO the results of an information risk review it carried out for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The ICO withheld the information under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure) and section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The ICO is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Information Commissioner
1 Mar 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Surrey Police relating to contracts with legal firms. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey 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 Surrey Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Surrey Police
28 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the diary entries of the Information Commissioner covering a total period of two years. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) provided some information, but withheld other information under the exemptions provided by section 21 – accessible to the applicant by other means, section 22 – information intended for future publication, section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs and section 40(2) – personal information. The complainant has challenged the ICO’s application of sections 22 and 36(2)(c). During the Commissioner’s investigation the ICO withdrew its application of section 36 to the majority of the information to which it had been applied, and also withdrew its application of section 22 to some of the information which that exemption had been applied to. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO is entitled to withhold all the remaining information under the exemptions provided by section 36 and section 22. The
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 36
View Information Commissioner
28 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an anonymised copy of a database from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). Having previously determined that to respond with the request would exceed the cost limit at section 12(1) of the FOIA, during the Commissioner’s investigation the MPS revised its position and instead cited section 14(1) (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that it was correct to do so. No steps are required to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Metropolitan Police Service
28 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of correspondence that Essex Police (“EP”) has had with a named organisation. EP advised that to ascertain whether or not it held any information would exceed the cost limit at section 12(2) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that EP was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of the FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Essex Police
28 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the closed files listed as BS 28/83 and BS 28/45 held by The National Archives. During the Commissioner’s investigation The National Archives (TNA) reassessed the information in one of the files (BS 28/83, the transcript index) and decided to disclose the names of individuals known to be deceased. To date this has not happened. The Commissioner’s decision is that The National Archives (TNA) has correctly applied sections 40 and 41(1) to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: the Commissioner requires the public authority to now disclose the names of the individuals known to be deceased in file BS 28/83. 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 pursuan
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View The National Archives
28 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about how the Council voted in a Business Improvement District (BID) ballot. The Council refused to provide the information, relying on sections: 44(1)(a) - prohibition on disclosure; 42 – legal professional privilege; and 40(2) – third party personal data, of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has correctly engaged sections 40(2) and 42 of the FOIA and the public interest rests with maintaining the latter exemption. She does not find that section 44(1)(a) is engaged. She also finds that the Council has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days, and section 1 of the FOIA by failing to disclose information held falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose all information withheld under section 44(1)(a); and issue a fresh response to the
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10; FOI 40(2); FOI 42; FOI 44(1)(a)
View Birmingham City Council
28 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Competition and Markets Authority (the CMA) seeking information about a costs determination it had issued when considering an Energy Code Modification Appeal. The CMA argued that in considering such an appeal it was acting as a tribunal and therefore not subject to FOIA by virtue of paragraph 1ZA of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner agrees with the CMA’s position and has therefore concluded that it is not a public authority for the purposes of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Competition and Markets Authority
28 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a named individual and his company which he believes may be held by the ICO as part of its investigation into the use of data analytics for political purposes. The ICO relied on the exclusion from the duty to confirm whether the information was held provided by section 31(3). This was on the basis that to either confirm or deny the information was held would, or would be likely to prejudice its regulatory functions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO is entitled to rely on section 31(3) to refuse to either confirm or deny it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Information Commissioner
27 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust (NIAS). Despite the Commissioner’s intervention NIAS has failed to respond to the request. Therefore the Commissioner’s decision is that NIAS has failed to comply with regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Northern Ireland Ombudsman
27 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to council tax liabilities and payments regarding a number of properties. The council withheld the information it holds under section 43(2), 31(1)(d) and also stated that no further information was held beyond the information which it exempted.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 31(1)(d) to withhold the information. She did not need to make a decision as regards the application of section 43(2) as the relevant information was provided to the complainant previously. Additionally, following a disclosure of further information during the course of the Commissioner's investigation, she has decided that, on a balance of probabilities, no further information is held by the council. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 31
View Charnwood Borough Council
27 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the information that the University provided in response to another request under the FOIA from a journalist regarding the delivery of the MA Dramatic Writing course. The University withheld some of the requested information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) (third party personal data) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA, and that the University is not required to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
27 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of minutes and documents tabled at parish council meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Wark Parish Council now holds no further information within the scope of elements [1] and [3] of the request beyond that published on its website – which is reasonably accessible to the requestor. However, on the balance of probabilities, she finds that the Parish Council did hold further information at the time it responded to the request which it failed to identify. It thus failed to discharge its Section 1(1) duty. In relation to element [2] of the request, the Commissioner finds that the fees that the Parish Council has proposed to charge the complainant are not reasonable and that it failed to issue its fees notice within 20 working days. She therefore finds that the Parish Council has breached Section 9 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Parish Council to take further steps in relation to elements [1] an
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 9
27 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (the MHCLG)’s database relating to compulsory purchase orders. The MHCLG provided some information to the complainant however it also applied the exemption in section 31(1)(a)(law enforcement) to other information. During its review it provided further information to the complainant but still maintained the exemption for other information. Following a further, different, request however it disclosed the remaining information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG has now responded to the complainant's request as required by section 1(1)((b), however it failed to comply with section 10(1) of the Act in that it did not provide the information to the requestor within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
27 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to his concern with the safety of pedestrians crossing a named road at a particular location and his wish to see a crossing installed there. The Commissioner decided that Surrey County Council complied with its obligations under FOIA sections 12(1) (cost of compliance) and 16(1) (provision of advice and assistance). However Surrey County Council did not respond to the information request promptly and did not comply with its obligation to reply not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt as required by section 10(1) FOIA. The Commissioner did not require Surrey County Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation arising from this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Surrey County Council
27 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific fire risk assessment. London Fire Brigade explained that it does not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that London Fire Brigade is correct to state that it does not hold the requested information. However, the Commissioner considers that London Fire Brigade has breached sections 10 (Time for compliance) and 17 (Refusal of a request) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require London Fire Brigade to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 17
View London Fire Brigade
27 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department for Transport (DfT) information about the Train Service Requirement for the Hull-Scarborough route. DfT has released some information, withholding some under sections 40(2)(personal data), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests). The complainant considered that DfT holds further relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: DfT originally breached section 1(1) of the FOIA as it holds further relevant information that it had not identified in its original response to the complainant. On the balance of probabilities the Commissioner is satisfied that DfT now holds no further information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. DfT breached section 10(1) with regard to the additional information it identified in the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. DfT complied with section 10(3) of the FOIA with regard to the length of time it originally took to comply with
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Transport
26 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of London Environment and Traffic Adjudicators’ appraisals. London Councils stated that it held the requested information on behalf of the Chief Adjudicator, and therefore did not hold it for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Councils was correct to state that it does not hold the requested information within the meaning of section 3(2) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
26 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a CCTV upgrade at a DWP benefits office. The DWP maintains that it does hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
26 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information involving the UK Mission to the UN in New York about Cameroon and Yemen. The FCO disclosed some information to the complainant but sought to withhold further information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (b) (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and 21 (information reasonably accessible by other means). The Commissioner has concluded that sections 27 and 35 have been correctly applied by the FCO and that the public interest favours maintaining each exemption. However, the Commissioner has concluded that section 21 does not apply and furthermore that the FCO breached section 17(3) of FOIA by failing to conclude its public interest considerations within a reasonable timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 27; FOI 35
26 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a three part request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information about a British national being held in Bangladeshi. The FCO provided some information falling within the scope of part 1 of the request but sought to withhold the further information it held on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. With regard to parts 2 and 3 of the request the FCO refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information on the basis of section 40(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO can rely on sections 40(2) and 40(5) in the manner in which it has. However, she has also concluded that the FCO breached section 17(1) by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days of the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0092 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
26 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking confirmation as to the identity of officials involved in locating and identifying files for Sir Jeremy Heywood's review in 2014 into allegations of UK involvement in the Indian Army's Operation Bluestar. The FCO refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information by relying on section 40(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the FCO is entitled to rely on this exemption to refuse the requests. However, she has also concluded that the FCO breached section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0089 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
26 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant has made a request for information relating to physical assaults on staff. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) has not provided a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to provide the complainant with a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
26 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for information relating to physical assaults on staff. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust (the Trust) has not provided a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to provide the complainant with a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View George Eliot Hospital
25 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking communications between the High Commissioners of various Caribbean countries and FCO Ministers about the ‘Windrush Generation’. The FCO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but sought to withhold this on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and 27(2) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (c) and that in all of the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. However, she has also concluded that the FCO breached section 17(3) of FOIA by failing to complete its public interest test considerations in a reasonable timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27
25 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistical information regarding allegations of abuse. The Commissioner’s decision is that Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust failed to issue a refusal notice, setting out an exemption it later came to rely upon, within 20 working days. It therefore breached Section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust
25 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a statue of the author George Orwell located outside Broadcasting House. The British Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC) confirmed holding information in relation to questions 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the request but refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of FOIA, as to do so would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit. It also confirmed that it did not hold any information in relation to question 4. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC was entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View BBC
25 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of legal advice and communications relating to legal advice related to an allegation of breach of copyright against a Professor of Cardiff University (‘the University’). The University withheld the information requested under section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly applied section 42 to the information requested. She does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0081 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Cardiff University