2 Jan 2019Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS Nene Clinical Commissioning Group (“the CCG”) about names and job/role title of all the CCG staff. As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require the CCG to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
21 Dec 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS England about travel expenses incurred in the financial year 2017/2018 including how many trips were paid for, total cost of trips, most expensive trip, specifically what class of travel and destinations/departure points. 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
21 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) for information about work commissioned by the then Secretary of State, Priti Patel, about a humanitarian and development partnership between Israel and the UK. DFID confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but sought to withhold it on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 27(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) and 27(2) (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy), 35(1)(b) (Ministerial communications) and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) and that in all of the circumstances of this case the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Department for International Development
21 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to the number of complaints made by members of the House of Commons staff about the behaviour of the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, within a specified period. Relying on sections 40(5B)(a)(i) and 41(2) FOIA, the public authority neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA as the basis for not complying with the duty set out in section 1(1)(a) FOIA to either confirm or deny whether the requested information is held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
20 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to a decision to close a resource centre that provides a day service to people with a learning disability. The council provided some information, however, the complainant considered that more would be held. Some further information was later provided during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0034 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Barnsley Council
20 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about the threat of terrorism if the UK intervened in Libya in 2011. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but sought to withhold this on the basis of sections 23(1) (security bodies), 24(1) (national security) and 27(1)(a) and (c) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 23(1) and 24(1) of FOIA and in respect of section 24(1) the public interest favours maintaining this exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
20 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about noise recordings made by the council at his home. The council provided the information however the complainant believes that further information must be held. Further to this he argues that the council provided the information to him in a different format to that which he requested it and so it failed to comply with Regulation 6. He also argued that the council failed to provide help and assistance as required by Regulation 9. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities the council has provided the information it holds to the complainant. She has also decided that the council’s response met with its obligations under Regulation 6 and Regulation 9. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0015 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 6(1); EIR 9(1)
View Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council
20 Dec 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from St Brendan’s Primary School (“the School”) regarding correspondence from the School’s Board of Governors. The School stated that it does not hold any recorded information within the scope of the complainant’s request other than that which the complainant has already received. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has breached Section 1(1) of the FOIA by not disclosing some of the information it holds in response to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires the School to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:-
Issue a fresh response to the complainant providing him with the information it does hold. The School must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
20 Dec 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information about the decision to award Harvey Weinstein an honorary CBE in 2014. The FCO sought to withhold all of the information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 37(1)(b) (information relating to the conferring of an honour) and the majority of this information also on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that although section 37(1)(b) is engaged, for the majority of the information the public interest favours disclosure of this information. However, in relation to the name of the individual who nominated Mr Weinstein and the information relating to other nominees referred to in the withheld information, the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. In respect of section 40(2), the only information which the Commissioner accepts is exempt on the basis of this exemption consists of the names of FCO and other gov
Exemptions cited: FOI 37; FOI 40
20 Dec 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to prescriptions for Sativex (nabiximols). NHS Oldham Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) failed to respond to this request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner considers that the CCG has breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Oldham Clinical Commissioning Group
20 Dec 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Home Office’s Data Protection Officer and data losses. 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. As the information has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Home Office
20 Dec 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to disability access at No.10 Downing Street. He had received information on this subject in response to an earlier request and the Cabinet Office explained that this earlier disclosure was also within the scope of the information described in this request. It argued that it held no further information beyond this within the scope of the request and upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does hold more information within the scope of the request. In failing to provide a proper response to the complainant it contravened the requirements of section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a response to his request of 19 July 2018 in accordance with the requirements of section 1 of the FOIA. If it seeks to rely on exemptions as its basis for not doi
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
20 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted four multi-part requests for information in relation to the TrawsCymru T3 bus service from Wrexham to Barmouth. The Welsh Government refused each of these requests in reliance on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government was entitled to rely on section 14(1) for each of the separate requests for information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0008 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Welsh Government
20 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) about files and information generated / held by its Special Branch. The MPS would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds any information, citing the exemptions in FOIA sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security), 27(4) (international relations), 30(3) (criminal investigations), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 23(5) of the FOIA is engaged. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal CO/2410/2022 HC PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Metropolitan Police Service
20 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a named officer from Thames Valley Police (“TVP”). TVP would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding the information requested by virtue of section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Thames Valley Police
20 Dec 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about thefts and damage to vehicles at official Gatwick car parks. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex 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 Sussex Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Sussex Police
20 Dec 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) relating to employees of the Northern Ireland Civil Service (‘NICS’) who were dismissed due to inefficiency sickness within a specified period of time. The DOJ applied section 40(2) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure of some of the information (‘the withheld information’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DOJ has correctly applied the above exemption to the information not disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner has also decided that the DOJ has not complied with section 1(1)(a) of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Department of Justice (Northern Ireland)
20 Dec 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested reports related to a planning application related to Highthorn Surface Mine. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (“MHCLG”). MHCLG disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing regulation 12(3) (by virtue of regulation 13) and regulation 12(4)(e) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHCLG cannot rely on either of these exemptions in relation to a portion of the information referred to in the Confidential Annex to this notice. It can rely on both regulation 12(3) (by virtue of regulation 13) and regulation 12(4)(e) in respect of the rest of the information caught by the scope of this request which remains withheld. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information identified in the Confidential Annex to this notice. The public authority must take these steps within 35 c
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 13
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
20 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an investment by Trinity College into a redevelopment project by Quantum Group. The complainant asked for updates to the College by the Quantum Group and minutes of investment meetings. The College disclosed some information but made redactions on the basis of section 41, 43 and 36 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Trinity College has correctly applied the provisions of section 43(2) to redact information from the documents it identified. She considers the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemptions and she therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
20 Dec 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Beeford Parish Council (“the Council”) concerning the installation of a bus shelter in the parish. This included a copy of the papers circulated to councillors ahead of a closed meeting in which concerns related to the specific bus shelter installation was discussed. The Council had responded to the majority of the request however it had withheld some information and advised that it was not in the public interest to publish the remainder of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that as the request relates to the installation of a bus shelter and some health and safety concerns the complainant had, which would indirectly impact the environment, the request should be assessed and responded to under the EIR rather than the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: reconsider the request under the provisions of the EIR and issue a fresh response to the comp
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)
20 Dec 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator annual report for 2015/16 and a further request for an unredacted version of the Defence Safety Authority's 2015-16 annual assurance report. The MOD sought to withhold the requested information on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs), 24(1) (national security), 26(1) (defence) and 27(1) (international relations). The Commissioner has concluded that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c) are not engaged; that section 24(1) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining this exemption; and that for a small portion of information which the MOD has only sought to withhold on the basis of section 36 and 27(1), section 27(1) is not engaged. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0041 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 27; FOI 36
View Ministry of Defence
20 Dec 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to support for patients affected by racial abuse. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GPs named above (referred to hereafter as “the Practice”) failed to discharge their duty under Section 1(1)(a) to confirm or deny holding information within the scope of elements [2] to [5] of the request. However, the Practice has disclosed, to the complainant, all the information it holds in recorded form. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Northfield Medical Practice
20 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted four multi-part requests for information in relation to the TrawsCymru T3 bus service from Wrexham to Barmouth. The Welsh Government refused each of these requests in reliance on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government was entitled to rely on section 14(1) for each of the separate requests for information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Welsh Government
20 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a multi-part request for information to the Home Office, including requesting, at part (3) of the request, any information held by Border Force relating to three named individuals. The Home Office cited section 12 (cost of compliance) in respect of part (1) of the request and denied holding any information in scope of part (2) of the request. It neither confirmed nor denied holding the information requested at part (3) of the request, citing section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner has investigated the Home Office’s handling of part (3) of the request. Her decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 40(5)(b)(i) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held the information requested at that part of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
19 Dec 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recorded information which relates to a loan made to Luneside East Ltd. The Council having initially refused to provide the complainant with information in reliance on section 43 of the FOIA, has subsequently relied on the provision of section 12 to refuse to comply with the complainant’s requests in their entirety. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire County Council has correctly applied section 12 to the complainant’s requests. She has also decided that the Council has contravened section 16 of the FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Lancashire County Council
19 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a number of requests for information to Lancaster City Council, which relate to the Council’s compulsory purchase of land at Luneside East, Lancaster. The Council has provided the complainant with some information which is relevant to some parts of his requests, however, it now relies on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to make further responses. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancaster City council has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the requests detailed in this notice, on the grounds that they are vexatious.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Lancaster City Council
19 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of lesson observations carried out within a defined period of time. The Commissioner’s decision is that All Saints Catholic High School is entitled to rely on Section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold all of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
19 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the emails received by a named inbox which relate to whistleblowing. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is relying on the exemption at section 36(2)(c) to withhold the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) to withhold the requested information and that, in the specific circumstances of this case, the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions
19 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Royal Museums Greenwich (“the Museum”), an organisation which comprises the National Maritime Museum, the Cutty Sark, the Royal Observatory and The Queen’s House, about individuals who have been banned from the Museum’s membership scheme and banned from its grounds and premises. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Museum correctly refused to respond to the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner does not require the Museum to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0001 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Royal Museums Greenwich
18 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Devon County Council the full transcript of an anonymous telephone call complaining about a piece of land owned by the complainant. The Council provided the transcript redacting a limited part of it claiming that it contains personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which would contravene the data protection principles.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA when it decided to withhold part of the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Devon County Council
18 Dec 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) for copies of correspondence between it and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) about the policy review and feasibility study into the resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago. The complainant also requested a list of this correspondence. DFID argued that the correspondence itself was exempt from disclosure on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 27(1)(a) to (d) (international relations), sections 35(1)(a) and (b) (formulation and development of government policy and Ministerial communications), 40(2) (personal data) and 43(2) (commercial interests). Following an initial decision to withhold the list of the correspondence on basis of the same exemptions, it provided the complainant with a copy of the list during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation whilst maintaining its decision to withhold the correspondence itself. The Commissioner has concluded that the correspondence i
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 35
View Department for International Development
18 Dec 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking a copy of correspondence between Sir Jeffrey Donaldson MP and the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, Ben Gummer, in relation to Brenda Hale being appointed to the Armed Forces Covenant Reference Group. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner accepts that this exemption is engaged but has concluded that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in the disclosure of the information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
18 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Leeds City Council (the Council) information in relation to taxis and drivers. The Council provided the complainant with links to this information on its website where part of the requested information could be accessed and offered the complainant a viewing of the remainder by visiting the Council’s premises.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is able to rely on section 21 of the FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Leeds City Council
18 Dec 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the steps involved with the process of validation to assess the strength and credibility of any nomination for honours or awards. The Cabinet Office disclosed some of the information held within the scope of the request and withheld the remainder relying on the exemptions at sections 37(1)(b) and 31(1)(g) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is not entitled to rely on the cited exemptions she requires the Cabinet Office to disclose the withheld information to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Cabinet Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1); FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
18 Dec 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council breached regulation 5(1) in initially stating that it held no information in scope of the request. It latterly corrected this position having re-interpreted the request, but as a result breached regulations 5(2) and 14(2) due to the late response. The Commissioner finds that the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) – commercial confidentiality is engaged to withhold part [1] of the request and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. She finds that the exception at regulation 12(4)(e) - internal communications is engaged in relation to part [2] of the request however the public interest favours disclosure. With regard to the naming of individuals in the minutes, the Commissioner finds that regulation 13 is engaged for the junior officers referenced, however it is not engaged for the Councillors or senior officers of the council. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
18 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the closure of ‘Woodlands Academy’. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Education (DfE) correctly applied sections 36(2), 43(2) and 40(2) at the time of the request. As the DfE disclosed all the requested information aside from third party personal data, at a later date the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Department for Education
18 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sunderland City Council (the Council) relating to how it manages health and safety and to the conduct of risk assessments by the Council. The Council provided information within the scope of the request. The complainant disputed that the information provided the answers he was seeking. The Commissioner investigated the Council’s handling of parts (5), (6), (10) and (11) of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council complied with its obligations under section 1(1)(a) and (b) (general right of access to information) of the FOIA in relation to those parts of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Sunderland City Council
18 Dec 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the sale of Blackpool Airport and adjacent land. The Council considered the request under the EIR, answering one question but refusing the remainder under various regulations. Upon completion of the review, the Council released some information. By the end of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council was still relying on regulations 12(4)(e) - internal communications, 12(5)(e) -confidentiality of commercial or industrial information, 13 - third party personal data and 12(5)(b) – the course of justice. The Commissioner’s decision is that Blackpool Council has correctly engaged regulation 12(4)(e), with the exception of one email, but that the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exception. The Council has not adequately demonstrated that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged with the exception of one email and has not adequately demonstrated regulation 12(5)(b) is engaged. The Coun
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
View Blackpool Council
18 Dec 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a football match between Brighton and Hove Albion and Crystal Palace on 28 November 2017 and a Ticketless Fan Allegation. Sussex Police failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so Sussex Police breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) of the FOIA or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Sussex Police
18 Dec 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested transcripts of interviews with judges relating to their views on the effects and impact of unrepresented defendants in courts. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to provide the requested transcripts, citing section 41 of FOIA (information provided in confidence). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ also relied on section 31(1)(c) of FOIA (the administration of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ is not entitled to rely in section 41 for the reasons outlined in this notice. She also finds that section 31(1)(c) is engaged, and that the public interest test favours withholding the requested information. She does not require the MOJ to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0292 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 41
View Ministry of Justice
18 Dec 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom 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 BEIS is not obliged to comply with the request in reliance of section 12(1). However, she finds BEIS breached section 16 (duty to provide advice and assistance) of the FOIA in not providing meaningful advice to assist the complainant. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Business and Trade
17 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about mosques and madrassahs. Lancashire Police neither confirmed nor denied holding any information by virtue of sections 24(2) (National security) and 31(3) (Law enforcement) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire Police has applied section 24(2) of the FOIA appropriately.
The Commissioner does not require Lancashire Police to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Lancashire Constabulary
17 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested vehicle registration mark data for vehicles licensed by the North Hertfordshire District Council for use as hackney carriages or for private hire. The Commissioner’s decision is that vehicle registration marks of vehicles whose registered keepers are living individuals are their personal data and that the North Hertfordshire District Council had correctly relied on the section 40(2) FOIA exemption to refuse the request. The Commissioner did not require the North Hertfordshire District Council to take any steps to comply with the legislation. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2019/0025 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View North Hertfordshire District Council
17 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning to an ongoing ICO investigation relating to data analytics. The ICO withheld the requested information under section 31(1)(g) with subsection (2)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(a) and (c) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0010 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Information Commissioner
17 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the allocation of an appeal hearing involving a named individual. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held information within the scope of the request, but refused to provide it, citing sections 32(1) (court records) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s application of section 32(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 32(1)(a) of the FOIA to withhold all the information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
17 Dec 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of the number of parents who have had their contact with Prestatyn High School (‘the School’) removed since 1 December 2016. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the School to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NESTON HIGH SCHOOL
17 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to Leeds City Council (the Council) seeking information copies of emails sent to, or received by, the Council’s Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council about the issue of devolution in Yorkshire. The Council initially disclosed some information to the complainant but sought to further information on the basis of sections 36(2) (effective conduct of public affairs) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed the majority of the information it was seeking to withhold and subsequently only sought to withhold three email chains on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that these email chains are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2019/0011 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Leeds City Council
17 Dec 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about broadband availability for specific postcodes. The Welsh Government disclosed the information requested, however, the Complainant considered more was held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Welsh Government disclosed some additional information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Welsh Government does not hold any additional information relevant to the request. However, in failing to comply with section 1 of the FOIA within 20 working days the Commissioner finds that the Welsh Government breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Welsh Government
14 Dec 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to payments made by NHS NEL Commissioning Support Unit and also various information about contractors. 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 issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View NHS England
14 Dec 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted two information requests seeking various policies, procedures, work instructions and information of a similar nature held by Nottingham City Council. The Council refused to comply with these requests under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1) in respect of the two requests. However, in applying section 14(1) outside the time for compliance, the Council has breached section 17(1). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0003 disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Nottingham City Council