20 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council (“the Council”) detailing the total compensation paid for damage caused to property or person due to poor condition of roads for the year 2015. 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 the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Brighton and Hove City Council
20 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to the draft budget. Upton Parish Council (the council) stated it did not hold the detail of information being requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the information requested. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
20 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Council’s correspondence with its auditors, a specific spreadsheet and the Council’s budget, all in electronic format. The Council provided information falling within the scope of the request but denied holding the spreadsheet requested. It originally supplied the information held in hard copy, and later electronically.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Beckley and Stowood Parish Council has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to supply information within 20 working days in the format requested by the complainant. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probability, the spreadsheet requested was not held by the Council at the time the request was made, but finds that the Council has again breached section 10 by failing to confirm this within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not find any breach of section 1 as the Council provided all the information it held falling within the scope of the request b
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
20 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of the council’s financial records and contact details for its councillors. The council provided the information it holds as regards its financial records, but refused the request for councillors’ contact details on the basis that it was personal data and section 40(2) of the Act applied. The complainant complained that the council had not provided all of the information falling within the scope of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided all of the financial records to the complainant which it holds, and that it was correct to apply section 40(2) to councillors contact details. She has however decided that the council did not comply with section 10(1) of the Act in that some information was provided after the relevant period of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
20 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for copies of correspondence either The Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh may have exchanged with the Prime Minister between May 1996 and February 1998 about the Royal Yacht. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemption contained at section 37(2) of FOIA, by virtue of sections 37(1)(a) (communications with the Sovereign) and 37(1)(ac) (communications with, or on behalf of, a member of the Royal Family). The complainant sought to challenge the Cabinet Office’s reliance on section 37(2) in relation to correspondence with the Duke of Edinburgh. He also argued that the Cabinet Office was likely to hold environmental information falling within the scope of his request and that such information should be provided to him under the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner has concluded that section 37(2) is engaged in respe
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
19 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to 2012 GMC Quality Assurance of Basic Medical Education (QABME) Report and 2014 and 2015 Annual Returns for Warwick Medical School. The GMC refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC 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 GMC 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 GMC
19 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made three requests covering a variety of issues but relating to audit activities. The Commissioner’s decision is that City of York Council has correctly applied Section 17(6) to the requests and, as such, it would have been unreasonable to expect the Council to have issued fresh refusal notices. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View York City Council
19 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of formal consultation responses made to Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (the ‘Council’) following a school catchment meeting held in September 2017. The Council aggregated the complainant’s six previous requests, made on separate dates, as provided under section 12(4) of FOIA and refused to comply with the current seventh request, citing section 12(1) of FOIA, the cost of compliance. It said that the cost limit had already been exceeded in responding to the previous requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to aggregate the all seven requests in accordance with section 12(4) of FOIA. Therefore, she considers that the appropriate cost limit would be exceeded by responding to the current request. She finds that the Council has complied with section 16 of FOIA in providing appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant in relation to his current request. However, by failing to respond to the request and issue a refusal n
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Southend-on-Sea City Council
19 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk (OPCC) relating to costs incurred in relation to specified legal proceedings. The OPCC refused to confirm or deny whether it held relevant information, citing section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OPCC was not entitled to rely on section 40(5) of the FOIA by virtue of section 40(5)(b)(i). The Commissioner requires the OPCC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
19 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint made against a neighbour regarding planning contraventions. He considered that the council had not investigated the complaint properly previously, and following a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman (the LGO) he was awarded compensation and the council was required to complete its investigations. The complainant's requests were essentially for information regarding the actions taken by the council subsequent to this. The council applied the exemptions in Regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable), Regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings), Regulation 13 (personal data of a third party), Regulation 5(3) (personal data of the applicant for the information) and Regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation however the council agreed to provide further information to the complainant and withdrew its reliance upon Regulation 12(5)(d). The Commissioner’s de
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13
View Cornwall Council
19 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an allegation of contempt of court. The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) confirmed it held relevant information, but refused to provide it, citing section 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 42(1) of the FOIA to withhold the information. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Attorney General's Office
16 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (the Royal Borough). The Royal Borough has failed to respond to the request; therefore the Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough has failed to comply with section 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Royal Borough to Issue a substantive response to the request under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
16 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for a report generated as a result of a lessons learned exercise into the ‘Exemplar Programme’, a project concerning the transformation of digital services. The Cabinet Office located a PowerPoint presentation as falling within the scope of this request and initially withheld it on the basis of section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy). In a previous decision notice the Commissioner concluded that the information was exempt on the basis of section 35(1)(a) but that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in disclosing the PowerPoint presentation outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Cabinet Office subsequently disclosed the presentation to the complainant. However, the complainant contacted the Commissioner and argued that the Cabinet Office was likely to hold further information falling within the scope of his request and this had not been provided to him. Th
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
16 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Essex County Council (the Council) information relating to highways work carried out at Brook Street, Colchester during 2016.The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception at regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) is engaged in this case. However, the balance of the public interest favours disclosure of the information.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Subject to paragraph 45 of this notice, disclose the information to the complainant.
The Council must take this step 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 12(4)(e)
View Essex County Council
16 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the decision not to extend a petroleum exploration licence granted to Xcite Energy Resources for Bentley Field and to subsequently grant a 4 year licence extension for the same field to Whalsay Energy Limited a company owned by the holders of the bonds in Xcite Energy Resources. The public authority disclosed some of the requested information and withheld the remainder relying on the exemptions at sections 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c), 40(2), 41(1), 43(2) FOIA and, the exceptions at regulations 12(5)(c), 12(5)(e), 12(5)(f) and 13 EIR. The Commissioner concluded that the withheld information is environmental information within the meaning in the EIR, the public authority was entitled to withhold the information on the basis of the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) EIR and, the public authority breached regulation 11(4) EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Oil and Gas Authority
15 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the so-called “Chennai Six”. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (“FCO”) refused to provide it citing provisions of section 27 (prejudice to international relations) and section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data) as its basis for doing to. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCO is entitled to rely on section 40 and section 27 as its basis for withholding the information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40
15 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of project assurance review reports for 3 major government projects, namely, Tax-Free Childcare, Columbus (IT delivery project) and, Customs Declaration Service. The public authority withheld the requested information relying on the exemptions at section 36(2)(b) and section 36(2)(c) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that public authority was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b) and 36(2)(c) FOIA to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 36(2)(c)
15 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a review into the funding of Islamist extremism in the UK. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has appropriately relied on section 23 FOIA (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) to withhold the requested information. She however finds the public authority in breach section 10(1) FOIA for failing to respond to the request within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
15 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from South Northamptonshire Council (the Council) relating to planning application for a wind turbine and the court proceedings which resulted from that application. The Council provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder citing regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(b) (the course of justice) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) to the remaining withheld information. She is also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request and has therefore discharged its duty under Regulation 5(1). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(1)
View North Northamptonshire Council
14 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of individuals resettled within a particular geographical area of Halton under the Syrian Vulnerable Person’s Refugee Resettlement Scheme and about the decision to participate in that scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that Halton Borough Council has provided the information within the scope of one part of the request. In respect of the other part of the request, she finds that neither Section 40(2) (Third Party Personal Data) nor Section 38 of the FOIA (Health and Safety) is engaged and therefore the Council is not entitled to rely on either exemption. In addition, she also finds that the Council issued a refusal notice which was both inadequate and provided outside the statutory time period for responding. It thus breached Sections 17 and 10 of the FOIA respectively. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose, to the complainant, the information it has
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 38; FOI 40
View Halton Council
14 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Hampshire County Council information consisting of emails, minutes, internal memos, reports and maps which make reference to “Ranvilles Lane”. The Council considered that responding to the request would place a substantial and unreasonable burden on its resources and therefore refused the request as manifestly unreasonable, citing Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has applied Regulation 12(4)(b) to the complainant’s request correctly. She finds that the weight of the public interest lies in maintaining the Council’s application of this exception. However, the Commissioner also found that it is likely that the Council held information falling within the scope of the request that would not be environmental, which therefore should be dealt under the FOIA regime. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response in relation to any information within the scope of the complainant’s request that
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Hampshire County Council
14 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information which explains certain terms found within summary prints of incident logs. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, Humberside Police disclosed the information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Humberside Police has breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) of the FOIA as it had failed to comply with the request within the statutory time of 20 working days. As the information has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Humberside Police
14 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Liverpool City Council (the Council) information regarding the proposed closure of Dale Street and Old Haymarket car parks. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly cited section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA as the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Liverpool City Council
14 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information which concerns the procurement process of contracts between West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Proventure, Xenonex and ICE Creates Ltd for executive coaching. The complainant has also asked to be given details of any payment made to the Authority’s former Director of Policy, Strategy and Communications. The Authority has refused to provide the complainant with certain pieces of information which are relevant to the procurement and awarding of its contracts for executive coaching in reliance on section 43 of the FOIA. The Authority has also refused to confirm or deny whether it holds information relating to any payments made to its former Director of Policy, Strategy and Communications in reliance on section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Combined Authority has properly applied the exemptions provided by section 43(2) and 40(5) to the information requested by the complainant. The Authority is therefore e
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40; FOI 43
View West Yorkshire Combined Authority
14 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the National Front from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm or deny (“NCND”) whether it holds any information and cited the exemptions at sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security), 27(4) (international relations), 30(3) (investigations and proceedings), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 23(5). No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/2230/2019 allowed. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0276 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Metropolitan Police Service
14 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested data regarding the handling of Stage Two Complaints. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire County Council did not breach its duties under either Section 10 (Time for Compliance) or Section 16 (Advice & Assistance). As the Commissioner is satisfied that the complainant now has the information he required, she does not require the Council to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0267 part-allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16
View Hampshire County Council
14 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Liverpool City Council (the Council) information relating to compensation payments for damage caused due to the poor condition of roads from years 1990 to 2015. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within the statutory time limit of 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. As the requested information has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Liverpool City Council
13 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) seeking a copy of an internal investigation report into allegations made against DAPP Malawi. DFID sought to withhold the report on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement); 40(2) (personal data); section 41(1) (information provided in confidence); and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that part of the report is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the remaining parts of the report are not exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemptions cited by DFID. She has therefore concluded that these parts of the report should be disclosed. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0277 Appeal Allowed in Part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 43
View Department for International Development
13 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested specific information relating to meetings and engagements between the public authority and a private company.
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. To the extent that the requested information is held, the public authority must disclose it or issue a refusal notice in relation to any information it wishes to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
13 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to changes in the cost of rent for a premises used by the Sea Cadets organisation.
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. To the extent that the requested information is held, the public authority must disclose it or issue a refusal notice in relation to any information it wishes to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Wandsworth
12 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes from meetings of the Misc 13 Ministerial Committee and Home Office Delivery Group, relating to animal rights. 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 issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
12 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested budget reports from Archbishop Hutton’s Primary School (‘the School’) for particular years. The School advised it does not hold some information and released other information with some withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third person personal data). In the alternative, the School has advised the Commissioner that it considers the complainant’s request to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The School has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the information it has withheld as it is the personal data of third persons. The School breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not provide an appropriate response to the complainant’s request within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require the School to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
9 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to complaints about police officers. Gloucestershire Constabulary provided information in regards to parts 1 to 6 of the request, stated that no information was held in relation to part 7 of the request, provided information to parts 8, 9 and 10 and refused parts 11 to 15 of the request on the basis that section 30(1)(a)(i) and (b) (investigations and proceedings) of the FOIA apply.The Commissioner’s decision is that Gloucestershire Constabulary was entitled to rely on sections 30(1)(a)(i) of the FOIA in respect of the information. However, she found a breach of section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA as Gloucestershire Constabulary did not respond to the request within the statutory timescale for compliance. The Commissioner does not require Gloucestershire Constabulary to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 30
View Gloucestershire Constabulary
9 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to NHS England for the minutes of a meeting concerning his deceased partner’s treatment and other related matters. He received no response. When contacted by the Commissioner to ask why there had been no response, the public authority initially informed her that it had not received the request the Commissioner had attached. At a later date NHS England explained that it had in fact received a request on that day. NHS England explained that it had made clear in a previous response to the complainant when it had applied section 14(1) that it would not respond to further similar requests. Therefore, it did not consider itself obliged to respond when it received such requests and would not do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust correctly applied section 14(1) to refuse the complainant’s request and she requires no steps to be taken. She has also decided that NHS England was not obliged to issue a refusal notice in respect o
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View NHS England
9 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
the Prime Minister’s visit to the US in January 2017 shortly following the inauguration of President Trump. Relying on sections 27(4) and 36(3) FOIA, the public authority neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information.
The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was not entitled to rely on sections 27(4) and 36(3) FOIA. The Commissioner also found the public authority in breach of the procedural requirement in section 10(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
9 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking communications between the FCO in London and the British embassy in Washington which contained the keywords ‘Twitter’, ‘tweets’, or ‘Britain First’ and were sent between 29th November 2017 and 13th December 2017. The FCO 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), (c) and (d) and 27(2) (international relations); 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The complainant sought to challenge the FCO’s reliance on sections 27 and 35; he was also dissatisfied with the time it took the FCO to complete its public interest test considerations. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (b) and (d) and 35(1)(a) and that in all the circumstances of the case
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27; FOI 35
9 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the disclosure of an unredacted diplomatic cable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for International Trade (‘DIT’) appropriately relied on section 36(2) – Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs - to withhold the information in the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for International Trade
9 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics relating to the number of information requests received, and responded to, by London Borough of Wandsworth in 2017/18. 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. To the extent that the requested information is held, the public authority must disclose it or issue a refusal notice in relation to any information it wishes to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Wandsworth
9 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics relating to the number of information requests received, and responded to, by Westminster City Council in 2017/18.
The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. To the extent that the requested information is held, the public authority must disclose it or issue a refusal notice in relation to any information it wishes to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Westminster Council
9 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the file PREM 19/2368 NIGERIA regarding the attempted abduction of former Minister Umani Dikko. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has appropriately withheld some of the requested information in reliance of section 23(1) and 27(1)(a)(c) & (d) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
9 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the most recent version of the ASK Help Script for staff. The BBC 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 BBC is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) and is satisfied that the BBC 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; FOI 16
View BBC
8 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the decision by Lancashire County Council to withhold reimbursement payments to a bus company. The Council responded that all held information had been previously disclosed in 2012, and that some outstanding information was withheld under section 41. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to fully consider and respond to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Undertake fresh searches for recorded information that would fall within the parameters of the request, and issue a fresh response that complies with the terms of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Lancashire County Council
8 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the Environment Agency (EA) to disclose three documents relating to the Redcliffe Bay Petroleum Storage Depot (RBPSD). The EA initially responded, refusing the entire request under regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation the EA also sought to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR for one of those documents. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR for the first two documents named in the request. For the third document, the Commissioner has decided that the EA incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR but, alternatively, it was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Environment Agency
8 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information pertaining to Rushcliffe Council’s (the Council) decision to add the White Horse Inn public house in Ruddington to their list of Assets of Community Value. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 1 and 10 of the FOIA. As a response has now been issued, the Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Rushcliffe Borough Council
8 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant asked the Department for Communities and Local Government – now the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (“the MHCLG”), for an electronic copy of all the information contained in the Department’s file associated with his PROD / Right to Contest application, referenced NPCU/PROD/N5090/7637. The MHCLG provided the complainant with some of the contents of that file, but redacted certain pieces of information in reliance on Regulations 13 and 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The complainant has not contested the MHCLG’s application of Regulation 13 in respect of the personal data of the Department’s and Barnet Council’s junior officers: He has complained about the MHCLG’s application of Regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold certain pieces of information and also about documents which are apparently missing from the information which was disclosed to him. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG has complied with the provisions of Regulation 5(1) of the EIR by providing
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
8 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to volunteers for Norfolk and Norwich Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that the Trust 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 Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
8 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information regarding the issuing of Cartes de Sejour to British nationals in France. The initially responded by saying that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. At the internal review stage it explained that it had located a small amount of information falling within part 3 of the request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a); it maintained that it did not hold any further information falling within parts 1 and 2 of the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the FCO located some further information in the scope of part 3 of the request and disclosed some of this to the complainant albeit withholding parts of it on the basis of sections 27(2) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO is entitled to rely on sections 27(1)(a), 27(2) and 40(2) in the manner in which it has. S
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 27; FOI 40
8 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence with a named trust and named schools. The Department for Education (DfE) 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 DfE is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) and is satisfied that the DfE 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; FOI 16
View Department for Education
8 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any complaints made against a named officer employed by Hampshire County Council. The Council refused to comply with the request, and stated that it relied upon section 40(2) to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption provided by section 40(5)(b)(i) is engaged, as the confirmation or denial that information is held would disclose the personal data of a third party. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Hampshire County Council
8 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the UK’s funding of the Syria Civil Defence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 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 10