29 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to the European Union (withdrawal) Bill, the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill and the European Union Delegated Powers Memorandum accompanying the Bill. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Exiting the European Union (‘DExEU’) is not obliged to comply with the request in reliance of section 12(1). No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Department for Exiting the European Union
29 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information from Mistley Parish Council (the Council) concerning the installation of a public toilet, the resurfacing of a particular road and the erection of stiles. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly relied upon section 14(1) of the FOIA in relation to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1), in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
28 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from University College London (UCL) the transcript of Professor Martin Birchall’s oral evidence and a copy of his written evidence to the Special Inquiry into Regenerative Medicine. UCL refused to provide the requested information, citing section 41(1) of the FOIA – information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCL correctly withheld this information under section 41(1). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken by the public authority.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View University College London
28 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the legal ownership of a plot of land. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire & Wirral Partnership NHS Trust 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 issued, the Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
28 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to the Employment Tribunal. The MoJ responded to the requests advising that they were not valid under the FOIA and would instead be responded to as ‘business as usual’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the three requests under consideration were valid for the purposes of section 8 (request for information) of the FOIA. In failing to respond to those requests within 20 working days the MoJ breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: respond to requests (1), (2) and (4). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0026 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 8
View Ministry of Justice
28 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the trust to disclose the details of the bonus awarded to a member of staff in 2016/17. He asked to know who the bonus was awarded to, how much it was for and what it was for. The trust refused to disclose the information citing section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust 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
View SUSSEX LEARNING TRUST
28 Jan 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a solvability algorithm model utilised to help Norfolk Constabulary solve burglary crimes. Norfolk Constabulary provided part of the information (specifically how many burglary cases had been analysed by the solvability algorithm) but refused to provide the remainder under section 12(1) of FOIA, as to do so would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that Norfolk Constabulary is not obliged to comply with the remainder of the request under section 12(1) of FOIA. However, in this case she finds that Norfolk Constabulary breached section 16 of the FOIA by failing to provide any advice and assistance to the complainant to suggest how he may refine the request. No steps are required to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Norfolk Constabulary
25 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Senior Manager Review. The BBC refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC was correct to apply section 12 FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner also considers that the BBC provided the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View BBC
25 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Stratford-on-Avon District Council a copy of an email together with attachments sent to it by a private individual in relation to a potential planning control matter. Stratford-on-Avon District Council withheld the requested information in its entirety under regulations 12(3), 12(5)(b) 12(5)(f) and 13(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Stratford-on-Avon District Council has correctly applied regulation 13(1) of the EIR to the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0048 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Stratford-on-Avon District Council
25 Jan 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by Warwick District Council (the council) relating to planning enforcement action taken in respect of a particular property. The council withheld the information requested in its entirety under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld personal information under regulation 13(1) but as it issued a late internal review response it was in breach of regulation 11(4). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 13(1)
View Warwick District Council
25 Jan 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application. Hertsmere Borough Council confirmed that some of the information was not held and withheld other information under the exceptions for interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f) and internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)). During the Commissioner’s investigation the council dropped its reliance on regulation 12(4)(e) but applied the exceptions for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)) and the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)) to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertsmere Borough Council complied with regulation 5(1) but that it breached regulation 11(4) and failed to demonstrate that the exceptions in regulation 12(5)(b) and regulation 12(5)(e) are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Hertsmere Borough Council
25 Jan 2019Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various items of information in respect of the Welsh Government’s direct engagement with Horizon Nuclear Power Limited and Hitachi Limited commencing September 2014 to date and concerning the proposed Wylfa Newydd development. The Welsh Government refused the request by virtue of section 12 FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government was entitled to rely on section 12 in respect of the non-environmental information and regulation 12(4)(b) in relation to the environmental information. However, in failing to provide appropriate advice and assistance the Welsh Government breached section 16 FOIA.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); FOI 12; FOI 16
View Welsh Government
25 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for information relating to contracts and change form. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England 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 NHS England to provide the complainant with a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
24 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has submitted a request for information to East Riding of Yorkshire Council about the Council’s cooperation with Hull City Council under the Local Plan. The Commissioner has previously issued a decision notice in which she found that the Council had not responded to this request in accordance with the EIR, and required the Council to issue a fresh response that complied with the terms of the EIR. The Council subsequently issued a fresh response in which it disclosed held information. The complainant submitted a complaint to the Commissioner in which he contested that further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has made all held information available. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
24 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the amount of money that has been spent on commissioning non-NHS tier 4 mental health inpatient beds for young people. NHS England has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that NHS England has breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
24 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted eight requests to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about the nuclear defence programme. The MOD argued that the costs of complying with these requests could be aggregated in line with section 12(4) of FOIA and that having done so the aggregated cost of complying with them exceeded the appropriate cost limit. It therefore sought to refuse to comply with all of the requests on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA. The complainant argued that the MOD was not entitled to rely on section 12(4) to aggregate the requests and that the MOD did not give him sufficient guidance to allow him to submit refined versions of his requests. The Commissioner has concluded that the MOD is entitled to aggregate the costs of the requests in line with section 12(1) and furthermore that the aggregated costs of complying with them exceeds the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner has also concluded that the MOD provided the complainant with sufficient advice and assi
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Defence
24 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report into the performance of the Interim Executive Board (IEB) of a named school. The Department for Education (DfE) disclosed some information but refused to disclose the report in its entirety under the exemptions provided by section 36(2)(c) – otherwise prejudice the conduct of public affairs, and s40(2) – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
24 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and his property. The council initially provided some information, but stated no information was held to part of the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council located the remaining information to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached regulation 5(2) of the FOIA as it provided some of the information outside the required 20 working day timeframe. As the council has now provided the information, the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View North Lincolnshire Council
24 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the University of Leicester (the university) to disclose the distribution of scores given to professors in the department of Neuroscience, Psychology and Behaviour (the department) during the review undertaken by the Senior Staff Pay Committee. 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. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The University of Leicester
23 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted 18 requests which are all connected with a grievance which the complainant has with the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were all vexatious and that it would have been unreasonable to have expected Lancaster City Council to have issued refusal notices in each case (although she notes that, in some cases, it did). The Council was therefore entitled to rely on Section 17(6) of the FOIA in each case. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(6)
View Lancaster City Council
23 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with a grading that Ofsted gave to a particular nursery. Ofsted has withheld the information under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA (law enforcement) and considers the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows:
The requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)(g) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require Ofsted to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
23 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the issue of the finality of the FOS final decision. The FOS refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOS was correct to apply section 12 FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner also considers that the FOS provided the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
23 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the use of restraints during an incident. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office 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 Home Office to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Home Office
23 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information about a trip the then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, had made to Afghanistan. The FCO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but explained that it considered the requested information to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 38 (health and safety) of FOIA and it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test. To date, the FCO has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations in relation to the request. By failing to complete these deliberations within a reasonable timeframe the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO has breached section 17(3) of FOIA in respect of its handling of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
23 Jan 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested emails sent and received by two named individuals relating to child sexual exploitation (‘CSE’) in Telford between specified dates. Some of the requested information was provided by Telford and Wrekin Council (the ‘Council’) with redactions under section 40 (personal information) of FOIA; the complainant has confirmed that he does not wish to complain about this aspect. However, the Council withheld the remainder of the requested information in its entirety citing section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). During the investigation, the Commissioner found that most of the withheld information was out of scope for the reasons explained in this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 36 to the majority of the remaining information in scope. However, as also explained in this notice, she finds that some of the emails are not caught by section 36. The Commissioner therefore requires the Council
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Telford and Wrekin Council
23 Jan 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to public houses. Nottinghamshire County Council (the council) initially responded that the information was not held, then later amended its position that information may be held but relied on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request – exceed the appropriate cost limit. During the Commissioner’s investigations the council then reverted back to its initial response that the information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has found that the council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA for the time it took to provide its final response. As the final response has been provided, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Nottinghamshire County Council
22 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of judicial reviews. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) 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 PHSO is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) and is satisfied that the PHSO 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
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
22 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on any studies or advice provided to the government regarding Brexit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Government’s Actuary Department (‘GAD’) has appropriately withheld the requested information in reliance of section 35(1)(a) FOIA – Formulation of government policy. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Government Actuary's Department
22 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the legal advice received by NHS England (NHSE) following a meeting with a named doctor. NHSE identified information within the scope of the request but withheld this on the basis that the information was legally professionally privileged and therefore exempt under section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision, after considering the public interest test, is that NHSE has correctly applied this exemption and the public interest favours withholding the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View NHS England
22 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all correspondence the UK Statistics Authority (UK SA) holds in relation to Sir David Norgrove’s letter to the Foreign Secretary in September 2017 concerning the alleged misuse of official statistics. UK SA released some information by refused to disclose other information citing sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that UK SA is entitled to rely on section 26(2)(b)(ii) of the FOIA in this case and the public interest in favour of disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View UK Statistics Authority
22 Jan 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the work travel expenses for the Chief Executive of Healthcare UK. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for International Trade (DIT) was not correct to apply section 40 to the information which it withheld from disclosure. Save for it did correctly withheld sensitive personal data.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for International Trade
22 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding the discharge of planning conditions on a particular site. The Commissioner’s decision is that Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of a response it provided, under the Environmental Information Regulations, within 40 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 11 of the EIR. The Council also failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore also breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: reconsider how it responded to the original request and inform the complainant of the outcome of that reconsideration in accordance with Regulation 11 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(2)
View Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
21 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence referred to in a letter exchanged between parties litigating in an Information Tribunal matter. The Commissioner’s decision is that Government Legal Department correctly relied on section 42 (legal professional privilege) to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Government Legal Department
21 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the BBC about a computer system associated with BBC podcasts, and an episode of a particular podcast. 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0039 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
21 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant, on behalf of Heathrow Hub Ltd, has requested from the Department for Transport (DfT) information associated with any appraisal Heathrow Airport Ltd was asked to carry out of an ‘Extended Northern Runway’ proposal. DfT released some relevant information and the complainant considers that DfT holds further information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, DfT has made available to the complainant all the information it holds that is relevant to his request, and has complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require DfT to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Department for Transport
21 Jan 2019Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the General Pharmaceutical Council (‘the GPhC’) about service complaints submitted to it. The GPhC 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 as follows: The request is not vexatious and the GPhC is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with it. The GPhC has not breached section 16(1) as, in the circumstances of the request, it provided appropriate advice and assistance. The GPhC complied with section 17(5) as it issued the complainant with a section 14(1) refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the GPhC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a fresh response to his request of 25 June 2018 that complies with the FOIA but that does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 16; FOI 17
View General Pharmaceutical Council
21 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
In five requests, the complainant has requested documents and particular email correspondence associated with a Southern Water water supply site at Shoreham-by-Sea. South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) confirmed it does not hold some of the information; it released some information and withheld the remainder that it holds under regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(b) (course of justice/legal professional privilege) and 13 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The withheld information is excepted from release under regulation 12(4)(e) and regulation 12(5)(b) and the public interest favours maintaining these exceptions. The Commissioner does not require the SDNPA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View South Downs National Park Authority
21 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a business case about the formation of an Alternative Services Delivery Model (ASDM) by Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) for estates and facilities management. The Trust provided redacted copies of the business case and its associated appendices and documents but withheld some information on the basis of section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to demonstrate that disclosure of the remaining information from the business case would have any prejudicial effect on the commercial interests of any party and as such, she has found that the Trust has incorrectly applied the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose all remaining information from the business case and its associated documents including the appendices and tables.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust
21 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested evidence of correspondence between an individual from Battersea Power Station Development Corporation and specific departments of London Borough of Wandsworth.
The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Wandsworth (“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 London Borough of Wandsworth
21 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a lease agreement between the Council and the West Berkshire Muslim Centre. The council provided some information however it refused to disclose other information on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(e) applied (commercial confidentiality). During the course of the Commissioner's investigation however the council reconsidered the information and applied section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 40(2) (personal data) to the information. The complainant did not ask the Commissioner to consider the application of section 40(2) to the information and so she has not considered this further. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 43(2) to the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View West Berkshire Council
21 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to specific redundancy scheme compensation cases that had been submitted to the Cabinet Office for consultation.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office (“the public authority”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the public authority 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 Cabinet Office
19 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested year-on-year staffing information, broken down by rank and gender, from Sussex Police. Sussex Police disclosed some information, but failed to respond to the request in full. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police breached section 10 by failing to provide a complete response in respect of the request. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to issue a fresh response to the request, confirming or denying whether the information requested at parts (2) – (5), broken down by rank, year and (for parts (2), (3) and (5) only) gender, is held. If it is held, disclose the information or issue a refusal notice which complies with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Sussex Police
18 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for the forenames and date of birth of a particular individual who had served in World War Two. The MOD had refused to provide him with this information on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The complainant disputed its reliance on this exemption and also argued that the MOD had failed to provide him with adequate advice and assistance in line with its duties under section 16 of FOIA The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case there is no further advice and assistance it could have reasonably provided to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 40
View Ministry of Defence
18 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information consisting of the responses from members of the public and other stakeholders in relation to the proposals to transfer schools that were part of Wakefield City Academy Trust (WCAT) to other academy sponsors. The Department for Education (DfE) withheld the requested information under section 36 – prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. However, during the investigation by the Commissioner the DfE disclosed the information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE failed to disclose the requested information within the statutory timeframe and consequently breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Education
18 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Arun District Council for a copy of the affidavit requested by Mr Justice Holgate in the High Court of Justice in case CO/901/2017. The Commissioner’s decision is that Arun District Council has correctly applied section 32 of the FOIA to the affidavit requested by the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Arun District Council
18 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Humberside Police relating to the cost of policing. The Commissioner's decision is that Humberside 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 Humberside Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Humberside Police
18 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Queensbury Lodge, Cottage and Stables in New Market. The Commissioner’s decision is that Historic England was entitled to rely on regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(d) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0046 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(d)
View Historic England
17 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all correspondence, documents, notes of conversations and recording of conversations passed between the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and a bank in relation to a complaint that was raised with the FOS. The FOS refused to disclose the information citing sections 31 and 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOS is entitled to withhold the requested information under sections 31 and 41 of the FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 41
17 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for information about a ship, HMS Fantome, which was wrecked off the coast of Nova Scotia in 1814. The MOD provided the complainant with some information falling within the scope of his request but sought to withhold further information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), 27(2) (international relations) 40(2) (personal data), and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has concluded that the MOD is entitled to rely on the various exemptions which it has cited. However, she has also concluded that the MOD breached section 17(3) by not completing its public interest considerations within a reasonable time period.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40; FOI 42
View Ministry of Defence
17 Jan 2019Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about Border Force staffing levels in Northern Ireland during a specified two year period. The Home Office confirmed it held information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it, citing sections 31(1)(a) and (e) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (e). No steps are required as a result of this decision
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office