3 Dec 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department for Exiting the European Union ("DExEU") sector studies referenced by Rt Hon David Davis MP in a submission to a Select Committee of the House of Commons. DExEU refused to provide this citing sections 35 (formulation/development of government policy), 27 (prejudice to international relations) and 29 (prejudice to the economy) as its basis for doing so. It failed to conduct an internal review despite the complainant requesting one. The Commissioner's decision is that DExEU is entitled to rely on section 35 as its basis for withholding most of the requested information. It cannot rely on section 35 in respect of a list of the document titles in the requested information in accordance with the Confidential Annex to this notice. This information is also not exempt under section 27 or section 29. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose a list of the titles
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 29; FOI 35
View Department for Exiting the European Union
3 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Scone Post Office. The Post Office Ltd (PO) 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 PO 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
View Post Office Ltd
3 Dec 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the minutes from a specific meeting concerning two festivals that took place in Brockwell Park.
The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Lambeth (“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 Lambeth
3 Dec 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the number of cancelled operations. Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the Trust breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
3 Dec 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the outcome of an appeal submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the information that the complainant is requesting is not held by the Inspectorate. The Commissioner does not require the Inspectorate to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0298 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Planning Inspectorate
30 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various items of legal advice provided to the Vale of Glamorgan’s Planning Department in respect of a dangerous structure at the border of his garden. The Vale of Glamorgan Council refused the request in reliance on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Vale of Glamorgan Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) in respect of this information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0282 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Vale of Glamorgan Council
29 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Westminster City Council in relation to the redevelopment proposal for Church Street Estate. The two requests were processed under two separate reference numbers. In respect of the first request Westminster City Council responded by providing the complainant with five documents and they refused the second request under section 14(2)(repeat request) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation Westminster City Council issued a further final response to each of the requests, which relied on links to documents and responded to some of the questions asked by the complainant.
The Commissioner’s decision is that in handling these two linked requests, Westminster City Council has breached regulation 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR by failing to make environmental information available. The Commissioner considers that Westminster City Council has breached regulation 9(1) by failing to provide reasonable advice and assistance
Exemptions cited: EIR 10(1); EIR 11(4); EIR 11(5); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 9(1)
View Westminster Council
29 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council (“the Council”) relating to the development of a site at the former St Aubyn’s School, Rottingdean. The Council provided some of the information that was requested to the complainant, but withheld some viability reports and associated information under the exceptions at regulation 12(4)(d) – information in the course of completion – and regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR as it considered that disclosure would have an adverse effect on the confidentiality of commercial information. The Commissioner’s view is that the information withheld under regulation 12(4)(d) is outside the scope of the request and so she has not considered it in this notice. She has also determined that the Council correctly withheld the majority of the viability reports and associated information under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, and that the balance of the public interest lies in the exception being maintained. However, with regard to the d
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
29 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the re-positioning of a particular communications cabinet. The Council provided some information and stated other information was not held. The Council disclosed additional information at the time of the internal review and during the Commissioner’s investigation The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further recorded information relevant to the request. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR in failing to provide all of the requested information within the required timescale. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to carry out an internal review within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5
View Carmarthenshire County Council
29 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of specific emails and meeting notes. The Welsh Government provided some information and withheld other information under sections 35(1)(c), 40(2) and 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has correctly applied section 35(1)(c) to the withheld information. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Welsh Government
29 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested legal advice relating to a planning matter. Gosport Borough Council withheld the requested information under the exemption for legal professional privilege – section 42 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority reconsidered the request and withheld the information under the exception for the course of justice – regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Gosport Borough Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1), regulation 14(1) and regulation 14(5)(a) of the EIR and that it correctly withheld information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(1); EIR 14(5)(a); EIR 5(1)
View Gosport Borough Council
29 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about complaints received by Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (‘the Health Board’). The Health Board provided information in relation to one part of the request and applied section 12(1) to the other parts of the request, as compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health Board has correctly applied section 12(1) to the request. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust
29 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the materials provided to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) by the European Research Group (ERG) in relation to the 2015-2016 Assurance Review of Pooled Services (updated in June 2017) undertaken by IPSA. IPSA originally withheld the information under section 43(2) – prejudice to commercial interests. However during the internal review of its handling of the request, IPSA withdrew its reliance on section 43(2) and instead withheld the information under section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that IPSA is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps in respect of this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
29 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to due diligence correspondence in respect of the Palestine Expo 2017: Generation Palestine event at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. The public authority refused to provide this citing section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 43 (prejudice to commercial interests) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it also introduced reliance on section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on the exemptions it has cited as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
29 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding planning compliance with National Grid defined safety protocols. Carmarthenshire County Council (‘the Council’) provided some information and applied regulation 6 of the EIR to one part of the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed some additional information relating to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further recorded information relevant to the request. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR in failing to provide the requested information within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be take.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Carmarthenshire County Council
29 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a specific planning enforcement case. The Council withheld the information requested under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, as a result of the passage of time, the Council disclosed the information it originally withheld. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it provided the information outside the 20 working day time frame. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 14(2) in failing to issue a refusal notice within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5
View Carmarthenshire County Council
29 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested some information from Cambridgeshire County Council (“the Council”) regarding the number of outstanding invoices from different local and non-local suppliers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has 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 section 1(1) of the FOIA or issue a valid refusal notice to the request. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 10(1); FOI 1(1)
View Cambridgeshire County Council
27 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Copeland Borough Council (the Council) regarding changes made to its Head of Governance role. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
27 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to tender submissions for a procurement exercise undertaken by Leeds City Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council has correctly applied section 43(2) – commercial interests, to the information that has been withheld and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Leeds City Council
27 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the considerations of the impact of the UK’s decision to leave the EU on the rights of Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request which it had not previously published relying on the exemptions at sections 27(1)(a-d) and 35(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Exiting the European Union
27 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department of Health & Social Care (the DHSC) to disclose a full list of MPDS (Medical Priority Dispatch System) determinants and the categories that they map to under the ambulance response programme. The DHSC refused to disclose the information under section 38 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC has acted appropriately by refusing to disclose the requested information under section 38 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not therefore require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0272 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Department of Health and Social Care
27 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the amount of compensation paid out as a result of damage to vehicles caused by potholes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not valid and therefore North Lincolnshire County Council (“the Council”) was under no obligation to provide information. However, it was obliged to provide adequate advice and assistance to help the complainant make a valid request. As it did not provide such advice and assistance, the Commissioner finds that the Council has breached Section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16
View North Lincolnshire Council
26 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an explanation of the decisions and actions taken by the public authority in relation to a complaint they submitted to the public authority. They also requested information relating to the training provided to specific members of staff involved in the handling of this complaint.
The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Bromley (“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 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 Bromley Council
26 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about British citizens who have had an observation placed in their British passport linking the document to foreign passports. The Home Office says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate limit to do so.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) and she is satisfied that the Home Office met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(1)
View Home Office
26 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any contact between the National Domestic Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit (NDEDIU) and the National Trust from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding the requested information, citing sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 23(5) is engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Metropolitan Police Service
26 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about compensation claims associated with the Franklaw water bug outbreak. United Utilities plc (UU) withheld the information under regulation 13 of the EIR as it considers the information to be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Under regulation 13(1) of the EIR, UU is entitled to withhold claimants’ full postcodes and information on any claimant illnesses associated with those full postcodes. The ‘outbound code’ element of the postcodes in question combined with information on claimants’ symptoms and illness onset cannot be categorised as personal data and does not engage the regulation 13(1) exception. UU breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR because it did not refuse the complainant’s request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires UU to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: With reference to the table in paragraph 28, release the outbound code element of each
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 14
View United Utilities
26 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested how much it costs to broadcast football. 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
26 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Through 14 requests the complainant has requested ICT-related financial and contract information from NHS England (NHSE). At the date of this notice NHSE has not provided a response to the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: NHSE has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has not provided a response to the requests within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires NHSE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s requests that complies with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
23 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a number of reports submitted to Ofgem by Drax Power Limited (Drax), including annual Sustainability Audit Reports. Ofgem provided some of the requested information including redacted versions of three Annual Sustainability Audit Reports. The majority of the information redacted from these reports was withheld under the exception provided by regulation 12(5)(c) – intellectual property rights. Regulation 12(5)(e) – confidentiality of commercial information and regulation 12(5)(f) - adverse effect on the voluntary supply of information, were applied to information from different parts of the reports. Ofgem later dropped its reliance on regulation 12(5)(f). The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(c) is not engaged in respect of the information to which it has been applied. However Ofgem can rely on regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the information to which that exception has been applied. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(c); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
22 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) staff surveys. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 36(2)(c) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the requested information. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal GIA/2301/2019 UT Appeal Allowed. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2018/0286 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Air Accidents Investigation Branch
22 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a particular incident that occurred in Area 9 on the M40, which Highways England’s contractor, Kier Highways, attended. The Commissioner’s decision is that Highways England has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA. However, Highways England breached section 10(1) by providing its refusal notice outside of the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require Highways England to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View National Highways
22 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainants have requested information on the design, siting, access arrangements and management of a traveller site in their local area. The council disclosed information but the complainants argued that further information was held by the council. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation further information was disclosed to the complainants (subject to redactions under Regulation 13(1)). The complainants, however, are unhappy that the council did not provide the information within the time period stipulated in Regulation 5(2) of the Act (20 working days). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to comply with Regulation 5(2) in that it failed to provide the information within the required period. She has though decided that on a balance of probabilities the council has now provided the information it holds to the complainants. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Hertfordshire County Council
22 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of documents created as a result of a previous information request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time period and has therefore breached Section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the FCO to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
21 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Mid Ulster District Council (“the Council”) regarding a report in relation to one of the Council’s leisure facilities. The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing the exemptions as set out in sections 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c), 42(1) and 43(2) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA to the report. As that section of the FOIA applies to the report in its entirety, the Commissioner has not gone on to consider the Council’s application of the other sections of the FOIA mentioned above. Therefore, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Mid Sussex District Council
21 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant – on behalf of the BBC - has requested information from Boots Group Plc (‘Boots’) about time standards associated with its dispensing services, and how Boots calculates community pharmacy staffing needs and associated costs. Boots advised that the requested information is exempt from release under section 43(1) (trade secrets) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The disputed information is exempt information under section 43(2) of the FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require Boots to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
21 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information pertaining to a number of planning requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Croydon has provided all the information it holds within the scope of the request which is not already easily accessible to the complainant. However it failed to issue an adequate refusal notice and thus breached Regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the London Borough to take any further steps in respect of this request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5(1)
View London Borough of Croydon
21 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the legal advice sought and received on a planning application to modify a waste storage site at the University of Bath. The Council refused to provide the information on the basis it attracted legal professional privilege (LPP) and made reference to section 42 of the FOIA and regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The complainant then amended his request to ask only for the question posed by the Council when seeking the legal advice, rather than the advice itself. The Council maintained its position on the amended request, and considered that the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of LPP outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Bath and North East Somerset Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to the information request, and that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
The Commissioner does not req
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Bath and North East Somerset Council
21 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a witness statement from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE says it does not hold this information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The HSE was entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information as it did not hold the information when it received the complainant’s request. As such, the HSE complied with regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the HSE to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Health and Safety Executive
21 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Crossley Hall Primary School, Bradford (“the school”) relating to any investigation into, or reporting of, an incident which was alleged to have occurred at the school in 2012. The school provided the complainant with some of her own personal data, which was relevant to the request, under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). It stated that it was unable to provide further information because, if held, it would be exempt under the following sections of the FOIA: section 40(2) (third party personal data), section 41 (information provided in confidence), and/or section 43 (prejudicial to commercial interests). The Commissioner has exercised her discretion to consider section 40(5) of the FOIA, which provides an exemption to the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held where to do so would disclose personal data in breach of the DPA. Her decision is that section 40(5) is engaged and that the school should have refused to confirm or deny
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View JOTMANS HALL PRIMARY SCHOOL
21 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the 1st Lord Mountbatten of Burma. The BBC disclosed the information for the first part of the request but confirmed that it did not hold any further information for the second and third parts of the request. The complainant considered that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC does not hold any further information within the scope of the request in this case. The Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
21 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the names of those persons who are currently accredited as Community Safety Accreditation Scheme members within the Cambridgeshire Constabulary policing area together with their delegated policing powers. Cambridgeshire Constabulary responded to the request after 25 May 2018 so the Commissioner has determined the matter under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Commissioner decided that Cambridgeshire Constabulary had applied the section 40(2) (Personal information) FOIA exemption correctly in refusing the request. The Commissioner required no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
21 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested all correspondence including minutes of meetings between the landowner and developer concerning the destruction of protected trees. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been handled under the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”) as opposed to the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council responded to the request for information 33 working days after it was made. As such, the Council has breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Ribble Valley Borough Council
21 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a particular planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria County Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Northumberland County Council
21 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Through a series of requests, the complainant has requested information from University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) that is broadly associated with the circumstances under which his mother died. The Trust provided information relevant to some of the requests. It provided links to some relevant published information and said it did not hold other information. The Trust relied on section 12(1) with regard to two requests (cost exceeds appropriate limit) and indicated that information within the scope of another request was intended for future publication. With regard to the majority of the requests, the Trust relied on section 40(5) and 41(2) to neither confirm nor deny it holds relevant information as to do so would either release the personal data of a third party or constitute an actionable breach of confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold the information requested in request 2 and complied with
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 41
View University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust
21 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust about the total number of operations cancelled for non-clinical reasons, and broken down by the cause of the cancellation. The Commissioner’s decision is that 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 Council to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
21 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the road maintenance policy, and repair history, relating to a specified road. Stoke on Trent City Council (the Council) disclosed some of the requested information, but withheld the remainder under regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice etc) and regulation 13 (personal information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to the information withheld by virtue of that exception and that the public interest in all the circumstances of the case favours maintaining the exception as set out in regulation 12(5)(b). She also found that the Council correctly applied regulation 13 of the EIR to the information withheld by virtue of that exception. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13
View Stoke-on-Trent City Council
20 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Summary wording for website: The complainant has requested information regarding the mapping of his local area. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ordnance Survey should have dealt with the request under the EIR, but that the request itself is Manifestly Unreasonable. OS was therefore entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken in respect of this request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Ordnance Survey
20 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about severance agreements. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council failed to issue its response within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. As the information has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Birmingham City Council
20 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the contents of a Planning Enforcement File which was created as a result of a complaint submitted by his neighbour. The Commissioner’s decision is that, as the file relates to the complainant’s property it is his personal data. She has therefore decided to apply Regulation 5(3) proactively to all the requested information and therefore the London Borough of Croydon is not required to disclose any of it under the EIR. However the London Borough failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, failed to issue an adequate refusal notice and failed to carry out a proper Reconsideration (internal review). It therefore breached Regulations 5(2), 11 and 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not therefore require the London Borough to take any further steps under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 14; EIR 5(2); EIR 5(3)
View London Borough of Croydon
20 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Newcastle City Council (the Council) information in relation to her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan (the EHCP). The Council provided part of the requested information, but failed to respond in relation to the remainder of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 1(1) of the FOIA by not confirming nor denying whether it holds part of the requested information.
The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the complainant confirming or denying that it holds data or information used to write the disputed sentence in the complainant’s son’s EHCP.
The Commissioner also found that by failing to comply with the request within the statutory time for compliance, the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA.
The Council 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 certificatio
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Newcastle City Council