25 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the ‘chain of command’ at two specified courts. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) provided some of the requested information but withheld the remainder under section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has correctly withheld the remainder of the requested information in accordance with section 40(2) of FOIA. She does not require the MOJ to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
21 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information in relation to a proposed regeneration project. The public authority disclosed some of the information held within the scope of the request. The public authority however considered the remaining information exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) EIR. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) EIR. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0067 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View London Borough of Brent
21 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the duties of a police constable. Hertfordshire Police explained that it does not hold any further recorded information relevant to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertfordshire Police is correct to state that it does not hold any further information. The Commissioner therefore considers that it has not breached section 1 (right to information) of the FOIA and has also complied with section 16 (Duty to provide advice and assistance) of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner considers that Hertfordshire Police has breached section 10(1) (Time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Hertfordshire Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View Hertfordshire Constabulary
21 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Minting and Gautby Parish Council information in relation to its value added tax (VAT) reclaim forms. The Council has categorised the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA and has refused to comply with it.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly refused to respond to the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests)
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
21 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the arrangements with the Permanent Secretary and Cabinet Office to ensure that processes were in place to prevent any conflict of interest between Lord Theodore Agnew’s ministerial role and his charitable interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education (DfE) has correctly applied the exemptions at section 35(1)(d) and section 41(1)(a) and (b) of the FOIA. However, the DfE breached section 17(3) as it did not provide the complainant with public interest arguments associated with its application of section 35 within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3); FOI 35(1)(d); FOI 41
View Department for Education
21 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman regarding the number of complaints it has refused in the last twelve months and related information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”). As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
21 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding planning issues at a particular property. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (the Council) initially handled the request under the FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s intervention it reconsidered the request under the EIR. The Council disclosed most of the requested information and withheld the remainder in reliance on the exception at regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request in accordance with the EIR. However she does not require any remedial steps in respect of this request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 14; EIR 5
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
21 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any email discussion between April 2014 and July 2014 regarding the use of a psychometric database by a named individual, who he understands was given access to it as a researcher working at the University of Cambridge (the university). The university refused to disclose the information citing section 40(2) of the FOIA The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA in this case. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View The University of Cambridge
20 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a specific pre-planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Croydon (“the London Borough”) has failed to provide her with the appropriate reasons and evidence to support its position. She therefore finds that the London Borough was not entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (Manifestly Unreasonable) to refuse this request. She also finds that the London Borough failed to carry out a Reconsideration (internal review) within 40 working days and that it failed to issue a refusal notice stating all the exemptions on which it wished to rely within 20 working days and thus the London Borough breached Regulations 11(4) and 14 respectively. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response which does not rely on Regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14
View London Borough of Croydon
20 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Croydon has failed to provide her with the appropriate reasons and evidence to support its position. She therefore finds that the London Borough was not entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (Manifestly Unreasonable) to refuse this request. It also failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and failed to carry out a Reconsideration (internal review) within 40 working days and thus breached Regulations 5(2) and 11(4) of the EIR respectively. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response which does not rely on Regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
20 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Croydon (“the London Borough”) has failed to provide her with the appropriate reasons and evidence to support its position. She therefore finds that the London Borough was not entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (Manifestly Unreasonable) to refuse this request. It also failed to carry out a Reconsideration (internal review) within 40 working days and thus breached Regulation 11(4). The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response which does not rely on Regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Croydon
20 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Croydon has failed to provide her with the appropriate reasons and evidence to support its position. She therefore finds that the London Borough was not entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (Manifestly Unreasonable) to refuse this request. It also failed to carry out a Reconsideration (internal review) within 40 working days and thus breached Regulation 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response which does not rely on Regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Croydon
20 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Croydon (“the London Borough”) has failed to provide her with the appropriate reasons and evidence to support its position. She therefore finds that the London Borough was not entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (Manifestly Unreasonable) to refuse this request. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response which does not rely on Regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Croydon
20 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked the Leeds City Council for information relating to Boston Spa School’s application to become an Academy. The Council was initially unable to locate some information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. Having carried out further searches, the Council found some relevant information and it subsequently disclosed this to the complainant. The Commissioner has decided that the Council has now complied with the requirements of section 1 of the FOIA and, on the balance of probability, it holds no further information relevant to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council has breached section 10 of the FOIA by disclosing relevant information after the twenty day compliance period required by that section.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Leeds City Council
19 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information sent from Northumberland County Council (the council) to Northumberland Estates. The council provided information it held but the complainant considered the council held more than that provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any further information to what was provided in its initial response to the complainant and that the council breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR as its internal review was not carried out within the required 40 working days. As the internal review has now been carried out and it has been found that no further information is held, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1)
View Northumberland County Council
19 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to communications from Great Yarmouth and Waverney Clinical Commissioning Group to Beccles Medical Centre (the Practice) instructing doctors that they are no longer allowed to prescribe Liothyronine Sodium to their patients. The Practice has stated that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Practice does not hold the requested information. However, she has recorded a breach of section 10 of the FOIA, as the Practice failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken as a result of the decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
19 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding sexual harassment and misconduct allegations about a specific employee and details about any related settlement agreements. The complainant believed that Folkestone and Hythe District Council must hold further information relevant to his request after the council had said that no information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Folkestone and Hythe District Council has provided the complainant with all of the information which it holds falling within the scope of the request. However, it did not issue a response within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Folkestone and Hythe District Council
19 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to know what actions are being taken to safeguard public money following a complaint about an Annual Return. Potto Parish Council (the council) responded asking for clarification of the request. Following clarification from the complainant, the council has not provided a valid response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 1 of the FOIA as it has not provided a valid response to the request, as required by the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the complainant’s information request as per section 1(1) of the FOIA or a valid refusal notice as per section 17 of the FOIA. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
19 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested, from Bright Tribe Trust, copies of the following invoices from Blue Support Services to The Whitehaven Academy/Bright Tribe Trust relating to works carried out at the Whitehaven Academy. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bright Tribe Trust 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 Bright Tribe Trust to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
19 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about costs incurred by Shropshire Council (‘the Council’) in dealing with a public inquiry. The Council disclosed some information, but said that it did not hold information about the costs of work done by staff in the course of their day to day duties. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Shropshire Council
18 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Cabinet meetings and a Cabinet committee on devolution in 1997. The Cabinet Office refused the request in reliance on the exemptions at section 35(1)(a) and section 35(1)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions are engaged in respect of the requested information. However the Commissioner is not satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions cited outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Therefore the Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to disclose the information to the complainant. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2019/0082 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
18 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) regarding all racist incidents reported to the Trust. The Trust provided the complainant with information – racial incidents which had been recorded on its system. However, the complainant considered that the Trust had not provided all information relating to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold any information to that already provided. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0086 Appeal Allowed in Part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
15 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information associated with the Crossrail 2 project: a list of residential property in the 2015 Safeguarding zone and a Safeguarding map. Transport for London (TfL) has released the list of properties, directed the complainant to where particular maps are published and released the part of the Safeguarding map that includes the complainant’s property. TfL has withheld the full Safeguarding map (that is, the proposed revisions to the 2015 Safeguarding Directions for the entire length of the Crossrail 2 route) under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (commercial or industrial information). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: TfL is entitled to withhold the specific information the complainant has requested – the full Safeguarding map– under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, and the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Commissioner does not require TfL to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0077 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Transport for London
14 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Somerset County Council’s (the Council) 2018 Library Supply Tender. 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 issue a substantive response in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Somerset Council
14 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has submitted a request for the costs incurred by the public authority further to a concluded litigation in relation to the completion of tax returns. The public authority withheld the requested information on the basis of the exemption at section 44(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0047 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/1668/2019 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 44(1)(a)
14 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the public authority relation to a Compulsory Purchase Order to acquire the leasehold interests in the properties on Bacton Low Rise Estate. The public authority refused to comply with the request on the basis of the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) EIR (manifestly unreasonable request). The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Camden Council
14 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various copies of Cabinet/Board Meeting minutes in respect of the proposed Wylfa Newydd nuclear power station project on Anglesey. The Welsh Government initially refused the request in its entirety relying on regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR on the basis that the information involves the disclosure of internal communications, however, it subsequently disclosed full copies of two of the Board minutes and redacted copies of the remaining minutes. The Commissioner has considered the Welsh Government’s reliance on the exception cited and has concluded that it was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR in respect of the remaining withheld information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Welsh Government
14 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (“MHCLG”) for copies of communications between Sajid Javid and Brian Martin concerning Grenfell Tower and fire safety standards for building materials. Having initially refused the complainant’s request in reliance on section 35 of the FOIA, the MHCLG altered its position to one where it relies on sections 36(2) and 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG has correctly applied section 36(2) to the information the complainant has asked for. She has not gone on to consider the Department’s additional application of section 40(2). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0050 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
14 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information in relation to financial sanctions on individuals and entities from the Syrian Arab Republic. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request relying on the exemption at section 44(1)(b) FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 44(1)(b) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: EIR 44(1)(b)
View HM Treasury
14 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Condition Improvement Fund. The Education and Skills Funding Agency (the Agency) is an executive agency of the Department for Education. The Agency cited section 22 (intended for future publication) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Agency has correctly applied section 22(1) of the FOIA in its response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Department for Education
14 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested Security Service-related information from the Home Office (“HO”). The HO advised the complainant that it does not hold the information. The Commissioner’s has considered whether, at the time of the request, the information was held by the HO. Her decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the HO did not hold the requested information. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0073 under appeal. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/2103/2019 PTA Refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
14 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to fixed penalty notices issued for cycling on pavements, and the number of people charged with dangerous cycling. The Commissioner’s decision is that 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 City of London Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View City of London Police
14 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted three separate requests for a range of information relating to Ministry of Justice (MOJ) employees, including changes to a particular role, resources, and training records. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has failed to respond to the complainant’s requests within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to provide the complainant with a response to the outstanding aspects of the requests in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Ministry of Justice
14 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Public Health Agency (PHA) in relation to health services and funding. The PHA disclosed some information and stated that it does not hold the remainder, in respect of which it has referred the complainant to another public authority.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHA does not hold any further information within the scope of the complainant’s request other than that which it has already disclosed to her. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0061 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Public Health Wales NHS Trust
13 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for information regarding several meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Canal & River Trust was entitled to rely on Section 14 to refuse both requests. The Commissioner also is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust did issue its refusal notice in respect of Request 1 on the 20th working day and therefore no breach of Section 10 occurred in respect of this request. However, in relation to Request 2, the Trust failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days and thus breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
13 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the council’) regarding allegations made into the conduct of a councillor and the investigation and report that followed. The request included interview statements, correspondence and communications between named and unnamed individuals. Although the council provided some information, the majority of it was withheld under section 12 (cost of compliance), section 30 (investigations and proceedings), section 40(2) (third party personal data), section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on sections 30(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and 30(1)(b), 40(2) and 42(1) to withhold this information. However, the Commissioner finds that the council has breached section 10(1) of the Act in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. She also fi
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 30; FOI 40(2); FOI 42
View Sandwell Council
13 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a brown bin scheme. North Hertfordshire District Council (the council) refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR as it considered it to be manifestly unreasonable because of the time and resources that would be required for it to respond. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is engaged, the public interest is in maintaining the exception and that the council has provided appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(1); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View North Hertfordshire District Council
13 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant on two occasions has requested from Essex County Council information relating to correspondence between a group of individuals and the Council regarding a planning application. The Council provided some redacted information citing section 40(2) of the FOIA and stated that it did not hold the remainder of the information requested.
The Commissioner’s view was that the requested information was environmental and hence it was appropriate to consider the request under the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to redact personal data in the documents that it shared with the complainant, hence regulation 13(1) (personal data) was correctly applied to those redactions. It is also the Commissioner’s view that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request.
However, the Commissioner finds that the Council applied regulation 13(1) incorrectly when it decided to withhold
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13(1)
View Essex County Council
13 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a multi-part request to Transport for London (TfL) for information about the recruitment procedures of MTR Crossrail. TfL responded to each element of the request, but the complainant remained dissatisfied with some of those responses. Following an internal review TfL’s position is that it does not hold any additional information in respect of the three elements of the request which are the focus of this complaint. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL does not hold any additional information and is therefore not under a duty, imposed by section 1(1)(b), to communicate that information to the complainant. Furthermore the Commissioner finds that in respect of the request for a particular job advert, TfL did not hold any information at the time the request was received. Although TfL tried to be helpful by obtaining some relevant information from MTR Crossrail, by failing to make it clear to the complainant that TfL did not hold the job advert itself, TfL has breac
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Transport for London
13 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a fly tipping and waste removal contract. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the FOIA exemption for commercial interests (section 43(2)). During the Commissioner’s investigation the council reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld information under the exception for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14, and that it failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) was 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 Dudley Council
13 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about police officers deployed to police UK ports for the 2018 football world cup from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS initially refused to confirm or deny holding any information citing sections 40(5) (personal information), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 24(2) (national security) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the MPS revised its position. It disclosed some information, advised some was not held and refused the remainder citing section 31(1). The complainant disagreed with the application of 31(1) in respect of part (1) of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1) is not engaged in this respect and the MPS is required to disclose the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Metropolitan Police Service
13 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service about how much it paid in legal cost, compensation to [redacted] and who authorised the agreement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service 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 Crown Prosecution Service to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Crown Prosecution Service
13 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the BBC associated with the promotion of a particular Radio 4 File on 4 programme. 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 in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
13 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS England about further details of each contract in relation to services provided by Heath@Work between 2013 and 2016. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England 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 NHS England to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
13 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the clerk’s quarterly expenses. The Council refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) FOIA as it considered it to be vexatious.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
12 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Isle of Axholme and North Nottinghamshire Water Level Management Board (“IOANNB”) relating to minutes from a committee meeting of the Water Management Consortium. IOANNB refused to provide the requested information, stating that it was exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) of the FOIA – legal professional privilege – and under section 43(2) of the FOIA – disclosure prejudicial to commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is not exempt from disclosure under section 42(1); however, it is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of the FOIA as disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of a third party. The Commissioner does not require IOANNB to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42; FOI 43
12 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about non-payment of Dartford crossing tolls by foreign registered vehicles. The Highways England Company Limited (Highways England) refused the request under section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 36(2)(c) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Highway Insurance Company Limited
12 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a new post created by Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust (the trust). The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust has complied with its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust
12 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from a court file, together with information about the costs incurred in issuing a court Order. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Ministry of Justice does not hold the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0063 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/1893/2019 PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
12 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a peer review of Greater Manchester Police carried out by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the MPS breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As a response has now been provided the Commissioner does not require the MPS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Metropolitan Police Service