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 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 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 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
12 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about licensed taxis that were accessible to disabled people. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bradford City Council failed to respond to provide all the requested information within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. As a satisfactory response has now been issued, the Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
12 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a particular individual being removed from the Medical Register. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the General Medical Council was entitled to rely on Section 14 to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View GMC
8 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of an investigative report referred to in a particular press release. Cardiff University (‘the University’) stated that the information requested was exempt under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the information held relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cardiff University
8 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details concerning the occupancy of a particular property. The Isle of Anglesey County Council (‘the Council’) provided some information and stated that other information held was considered exempt under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 40(2) to the request. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Isle of Anglesey County Council
7 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the total number of individuals under the age of 17 that have been disqualified from driving in the past five years in West Yorkshire; broken down by year, age, length of disqualification, gender and area of residence. The DVLA disclosed disqualifications by year, age and length of disqualification and withheld information relating to gender and area of residence under section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA for the non-disclosure of the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
7 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) relating to its contract with Interserve for HMP Berwyn. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Ministry of Justice
7 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to parts (1) and (3) of a qualifying test for a judicial appointment. The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) refused to provide the requested information citing section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) was engaged but that the public interest favours releasing some of the requested information. She also found a procedural breach. The Commissioner requires the JAC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the information contained in Annex E in the copy of the withheld information provided to the Commissioner.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36
View Judicial Appointments Commission
7 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) relating to the total costs to date of external counsel in a specified court case. The CPS initially denied holding any information within the scope of the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation, it located and disclosed some relevant information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the CPS did not hold any further information within the scope of the request and it therefore complied with the duty set out at section 1(1) (general right of access) of FOIA. The Commissioner did, however, find a procedural breach of section 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Crown Prosecution Service
7 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a Crime Reduction Report from Humberside Police (“HP”). HP initially advised the complainant that it was exempt from disclosure under section 22 (information intended for future publication) of the FOIA. Following internal review it advised her that it was exempt from disclosure under section 21 (information reasonably accessible by other means) of the FOIA.
During the Commissioner’s investigation it became apparent that HP had directed the complainant to the wrong report. It subsequently provided the correct Crime Reduction Report to the complainant, with some redactions which were not contested. The complainant remained dissatisfied with the handling of her request and the timeliness of the response.
The Commissioner’s decision is that HP breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to provide the requested information within the statutory time limit. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Humberside Police
7 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a data retention policy and a unpopulated copy of a spreadsheet. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Enfield (“the London Borough”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Enfield Council
7 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Health (DoH) in relation to health services. The DoH applied sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH has correctly applied section 14 (2) of the FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner has also decided that the DoH breached section 17(5) of the FOIA by not issuing an appropriate notice of its reliance on section 14 of the FOIA in relation to the complainant’s current request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department of Health and Social Care
7 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to the number of recorded deaths of people who were sleeping rough or of no fixed address. Reading Borough Council (the council) initially refused the request under section 40 of the FOIA as it consider the information to be third party personal data. During the internal review, the council changed its response to ‘information not held’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Reading Borough Council
6 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about service credits relating to contracts for the provision of asylum accommodation. The Home Office withheld the information, citing section 43(2) (Commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has failed to demonstrate that disclosing the requested information would be likely to prejudice its, or any of its service providers, commercial interests. The Commissioner therefore considers that section 43(2) of the FOIA is not engaged. The Commissioner also considers that the Home Office has breached sections 10(1) (Time for compliance) and 17(1) (Refusal of a request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
To disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner ma
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 43(2)
View Home Office
5 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Derby City Council (the Council) information in relation to cash seizures carried out by Environmental, Health and Trading Standards for a specific period of time. The Council’s position was that it did not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request in this case. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0062 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Derby City Council
5 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Staffordshire County Council (the Council) relating to work in specified locations he believed to have been done by the Council. The complainant disputed the Council’s handling of points 2(a) and 2(b) of the request, namely its denial that it held relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. She therefore upholds the Council’s application of regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIR. She did, however, find a procedural breach of regulation 11 (representations and considerations) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(11)
View Staffordshire County Council
5 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications and minutes relating to the decision by Channel 4 to move parts of its functions outside London. Channel 4 refused to provide the requested information on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (c) and later sought to rely on section 43(2) as an alternative. The Commissioner’s decision is that Channel 4 has correctly applied section 36(2)(b) and (c) to the information and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Channel 4
5 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Homes for Haringey (‘HfH’); an arm’s length organisation of the London Borough of Haringey and a public authority in its own right for the purposes of the FOIA. The information is associated with an audit report that a Homes for Haringey Resident Scrutiny Panel produced, which concerned the Haringey Leaseholders Association. HfH has withheld information under section 41(1) of the FOIA (information provided in confidence) and considers that it is also exempt section 40(2)(third person personal data). HfH says other information it holds is exempt information under section 21 (accessible to applicant by other means) and that it does not hold some of the information the complainant has requested. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information requested in request [1] – the full audit report - is exempt information under section 41(1). On the balance of probabilities, HfH does not hold some of the information requested in request
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21; FOI 41
5 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about retainer payments made by BBC to its highest paid staff including Graham Norton and Mary Berry. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of “journalism, art or literature” and did not fall inside 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
5 Feb 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of the printed material that appears in all police notebooks that are issued to officers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) 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 MPS to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Metropolitan Police Service
5 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested statistical information about the number of documents held by Staffordshire Police in relation to individuals who identify as a gender other than male or female. Staffordshire Police refused to comply with the request on the basis that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit in costs set by section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance). The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police correctly applied section 12(1) and found that there is no breach of section 16(1) of the FOIA (duty to provide advice and assistance). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Staffordshire Police
4 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to how the Care Quality Commission (the CQC) performs its role of ensuring that GP Practices are able to provide safe, effective, compassionate, high quality care to patients harmed by their experience of domestic abuse, racial abuse and discrimination. The complainant is concerned that the CQC has not complied with section 1(1), section 10(1), section 16(1) and section 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CQC has complied with its obligations under section 1(1), section 10(1), section 16(1) and section 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17
View CQC
4 Feb 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Kent County Council (“the Council”) regarding the staff and consultant pay, pension and other details for both the Council and companies that it has a financial interest in. The Council initially answered the request regarding its own figures but could not answer all of the complainant’s questions relating to the other companies he asked about. Later, in its internal review, the Council confirmed that the companies the complainant seemed to be interested in were separate legal entities and public authorities in their own right. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request but she finds that the Council has not complied with section 16 of the FOIA in providing appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant. Also, by failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, the Commissioner finds that the Council has breached
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Kent County Council
1 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on a meeting that the complainant considered had taken place between The Prince of Wales and Michael Gove MP. The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) refused the request under regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR on the basis that it did hold any environmental information and refused to confirm or deny it held any non-environmental information under section 37(2) of the FOIA which provides that a public authority is not obliged to confirm whether it holds information which constitutes a communication with the heir to the Throne. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra does not hold any environmental information and therefore is entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. Defra is also entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any non-environmental information under section 37(2).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); FOI 37
1 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant, on behalf of Greenpeace’s ‘Unearthed’ journalism project, has requested from the Department for Transport (DfT) information about any ministerial meetings with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and/or Volkswagen. DfT released some information (with personal data withheld) and advised that it did not hold any formal minutes of meetings held. DfT confirmed that it is withholding some information under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR as it considers that this information can be categorised as internal communications. It considers the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: DfT has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) to the information it is withholding under this exception and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require DfT to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Department for Transport
1 Feb 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Clinical Psychology Programme. The University of Hertfordshire (University) refused to provide the requested information 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 University has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
31 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of all briefings to Nick Gibb relating to new multiplication tests for school children. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education (DfE) was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b) to withhold the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0024 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
31 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from NHS England about a staff ‘away day’ in Leeds on 20 September 2018. At the date of this notice, NHS England has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: NHS England has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has not provided a response to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires NHS England to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s clarified request of 10 October 2018 that complies with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
31 Jan 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) relating to an Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) managed investigation. The IOPC refused the request under sections 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means), 30 (investigations and proceedings), 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal information) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. The complainant also voiced concerns that the IOPC had not responded to the request “promptly” and that it had therefore breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC was entitled to rely on section 21 to refer the complainant to information already in the public domain and on section 30(1)(a)(i) to withhold further information falling within the scope of parts (1) and (2) of the request. However, she found that its response to part (3) of the request was inadequate, in that it failed to properly establish whether or
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 21; FOI 30
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
31 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) about a complaint he made to it regarding its consular service. The FCO refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA because it considered it to be vexatious. The Commissioner has concluded that the request is vexatious and therefore the FCO is not obliged to respond to the request by virtue of section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
31 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about ‘go cold’ and missile malfunction events concerning unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for the last five years. The MOD provided the complainant with some of the information falling within the scope of his request but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of sections 26(1)(b) (defence), 27(1)(a) and (d) (international relations) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(b) and that in all of the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining this exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
31 Jan 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for correspondence between it and the Internet Computer Bureau about the internet domain ‘.io’. The FCO provided the complainant with some information but sought to withhold additional information on the basis of the exemptions contained at the following sections of FOIA: sections 40 (personal data), 41 (information provided in confidence) 43 (commercial interests). The FCO also refused to confirm or deny whether it hold any further information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 23(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO is entitled to rely on all these exemptions in the manner in which it has. However, she has also concluded that the FCO breached section 17(3) by failing to complete its public interest considerations within a reasonable timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43
31 Jan 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information about its ‘Head of Counter Disinformation’. The FCO sought to withhold the information falling within the scope of these requests on the basis of sections 24 (national security), 27 (international relations) and 40 (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 24 of FOIA. The Commissioner has also concluded that the FCO did not breach section 16 by failing to direct the complainant to certain information which was in the public domain. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO committed procedural breaches of sections 10 and 17 in its handling of these requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 24
31 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information associated with activity at a particular site. The Environment Agency (EA) released some information and relied on regulation 13(1) of the EIR (third party personal data) to withhold other information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The EA is not obliged to confirm or deny it holds any information falling within the scope of the request under regulation 13(5)(a) of the EIR, as to do so would release the personal data of a third party. The Commissioner does not require the EA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Environment Agency
31 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a contract with ‘Babylon and/or GP at Hand’. The Commissioner’s decision is that Dr Jefferies and Partners (the surgery) was entitled to rely on section 43(2) of the FOIA to withhold part of the requested information. The Commissioner does require not the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
31 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about an economic viability assessment. In handling the request, Cornwall Council extended the time for compliance under regulation 7(1), and subsequently provided a response in which it disclosed the held information. The complainant queried the Council’s decision to apply regulation 7(1), and the Council acknowledged in its internal review that it was incorrect to do this. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council incorrectly applied regulation 7(1), and in doing so disclosed held information outside the time for compliance, therefore breaching regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); EIR 7(1)
View Cornwall Council
31 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants requested various information from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council in respect of a Protection of Vulnerable Adult (POVA) investigation into the death of their mother. The Council initially refused the request in reliance on section 31 (Law Enforcement) of the FOIA, however during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation withdrew its reliance on this exemption in favour of sections 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Neath Port Talbot Council was entitled to rely on sections 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
31 Jan 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the Department for Education (DfE) to disclose information relating to a piece of land it purchased to build a new secondary school. The complainant believes the Land Registry documents reference various covenants and other restrictions on the land and asked the DfE to provide full details of how it had discharged these covenants to enable it to build on the land. The DfE confirmed that it does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the DfE does not hold the requested information. It was therefore entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14; EIR 5
View Department for Education
31 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about a robbery of a post office in 1972 in Bangor, Northern Ireland committed by four soldiers. The MOD provided the complainant with some of the information it had located but sought to withhold further information on the basis of section 40 (personal data) and section 38 (health and safety) of FOIA. The complainant sought to dispute the application of these exemptions and argued that the MOD was likely to hold further information falling within the scope of his request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOD located a small amount of further information but also argued that this was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40 and that part of it was also exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 32 (court records). The Commissioner has concluded that on the balance of probabilities, the MOD does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the r
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Ministry of Defence
30 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Middlesbrough Council (“the Council”) regarding a particular Remand Home in Middlesbrough. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 1(1)(a) and section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a substantive response, under the FOI, to the request
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1)
View Middlesbrough Council
30 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding staffing and Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision. The Commissioner’s decision is that Norfolk County Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Norfolk County Council
30 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the “Trust”) about the number of people who have initiated employment tribunal proceedings against the Trust and number of people who have made whistleblowing allegations at the Trust in the last 5 years. The complainant revised his request and added to it by requesting information from the Trust about the legal team that represented the Trust. The Commissioner’s decision is that the 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 the Trust to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
30 Jan 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has submitted a request for information to Fareham Borough Council about legal advice received by the Council in respect of planning application matters. The Council withheld the information under section 42(1) of the FOIA and regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the information under section 42(1) FOIA and regulation 12(5)(b) EIR. However, in failing to consider the request under the EIR, the Council breached the requirement of regulation 14. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14; FOI 42
View Fareham Borough Council
30 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to voluntary returns surgeries. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information citing section 31(1)(e) (law enforcement – the operation of the immigration controls) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption provided by section 31(1)(e) was not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld surgery locations and host organisation names from the list of surgery names and addresses provided to the Commissioner.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
30 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Education Authority of Northern Ireland (“EANI”) in relation to a whistleblowing investigation. The EANI refused to disclose part of the requested information, citing the exemption as set out in section 40(2) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the EANI has correctly applied section 40(2)of the FOIA to the withheld information. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
30 Jan 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of information that the Council has (or which he believes has) relied upon in the course of dealing with his ongoing grievance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council was entitled to rely on Section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to respond. However it failed to issue its refusal notice, applying Section 14, within 20 working days and thus breached Section 17(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken in respect of this complaint. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0053 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17(5)
View Gateshead Council