8 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an information notice. The ICO provided the complainant with a redacted copy of the information he had requested. The redactions were made under section 31(1)(g) with subsection (2)(a) and (c) and 40(2) 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) and section 40(2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40(2)
View Information Commissioner
7 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the public authority on various issues involving the gastroenterology department, including information on discussions about reviews and outcomes of reviews. The Trust initially refused the request on the basis of section 14 and later stated it was seeking to rely on section 12 as complying with the request would exceed the cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust applied section 14(1) and 12(1) incorrectly as it did not demonstrate that the cost of the request would exceed the limit or that the burden of responding would outweigh any serious value the request had. The Commissioner finds that the Trust did comply with section 16(1) by providing advice and assistance but that this was not necessary as section 12 had been incorrectly applied. The Commissioner requires the public authority to write to the complainant with a fresh response to the request that does not rely on either section 12(1) or 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 14; FOI 16
View Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Trust
7 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Information Commissioner’s Office (‘the ICO’) copies of correspondence broadly associated with a previous decision by the Information Commissioner. The ICO has refused to comply with the request which it has categorised as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The request is vexatious and the ICO is not obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Information Commissioner
7 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with the PACE trial. Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) has categorised the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA and has refused to comply with it. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The request is vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require QMUL to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0268 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Queen Mary University of London
7 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking a copy of the report produced by its Implementation Unit in 2016 into the shale gas industry. The Cabinet Office sought to withhold the report on the basis of the follow regulations of the EIR: 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information), 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information) and 12(5)(b) (the course of justice). The Commissioner has concluded that the report is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(4)(e) and that for the majority of the content the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, she has concluded that the public interest favours disclosure of the Background and Executive Summary sections of the report. Albeit, that the Commissioner accepts that some parts of these sections of the report are exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR and the public interest favours withholding such
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Cabinet Office
7 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by the Cabinet Office relating to the Care Quality Commission between specified dates. The Cabinet Office originally refused the request under section 12 (cost limit), but during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation sought to rely on section 14 (vexatious request) instead. The Cabinet Office claimed that section 14 applied because compliance with the request would constitute a grossly oppressive burden. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has failed to demonstrate that the request is vexatious. Therefore the Cabinet Office was not entitled to refuse the request under section 14 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
7 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Hillingdon (the Council) for the name of the individual liable for council tax and business rates at a particular address. The Council refused to disclose the information on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Hillingdon Council
7 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the comment section on the online news articles. 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
7 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the background checks undertaken for the former Chief Executive of the Education Fellowship Trust and correspondence and communication between the DfE, the Education Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) and the regional commissioners between January and the end of March 2017 with regard to any discussions or proposals that deal with measures to tackle poor performance by the Education Fellowship Trust, its trustees, senior management and its schools. The DfE responded, it refused to disclose the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), section 36(2)(c) and section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and section 36(2)(c) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
7 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Ards & North Down Borough Council (“the Council”) regarding planning applications. The Council provided the complainant with some information in relation to his request and stated that it does not hold any further recorded information within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the complainant’s request. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
6 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with an allotment working group. Bicester Town Council withheld the information under the exemption for information intended for future publication – section 22 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority disclosed the information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bicester Town Council failed to disclose the information within the statutory time limit and breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
6 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the information 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 undertaken by IPSA and the report update of June 2017. 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 further steps in respect of this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
6 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information which he believes Staffordshire Police holds about a verbal dispute between a police officer and a nightclub owner. Staffordshire Police disclosed a small amount of information and said that it did not hold anything further. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Staffordshire Police has disclosed all the information it holds.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Staffordshire Police
6 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about a particular procurement process. In response to the first request the MOD provided some information, confirmed that some information was not held and sought to withhold further information on the basis of sections 40(2) and 43(2) of FOIA. It also refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within one part of the request on the basis of section 40(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the MOD is entitled to rely on all of the exemptions it has cited. However, in handling the first request it breached section 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA. With regard to the second request the MOD breached section 10(1) by failing to respond to it within 20 working days. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Ministry of Defence
6 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of names together with the full postal addresses of the placement providers participating in DWP employment schemes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP need not provide the requested information by virtue of section 12 (costs).
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department for Work and Pensions
5 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about use of a mobile telephone which he had reported to the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to confirm or deny whether any information was held citing the exemption at section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
5 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the email addresses of the Board of Governors of South West Lincolnshire Clinical Commissioning Group (‘CCG’). The CCG has withheld this information under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considers it to be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The CCG is correct to withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View South Lincolnshire Clinical Commissioning Group
5 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the names of companies applying for licences for the export of equipment with Military List ratings during 2016 and the destination countries and Military List ratings of such exports. Department for International Trade provided the complainant with a list of all companies which applied for licences for the export of such equipment during 2016 but withheld the remainder of the information requested under section 41(1)(information provided in confidence) and section 43(2)(prejudice to commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for International Trade correctly applied the section 41(1) exemption to the withheld information and there is no valid public interest defence which would override that duty of confidentiality.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Department for International Trade
5 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a document known as the ‘Scheme of Delegation’ pursuant to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (the ‘IOPC’). North Yorkshire Police (‘NYP’) denied holding the information for part of the request and cited section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) for the remainder. Following an internal review it said it did not hold any of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, NYP did not hold the requested information and it therefore complied with the duty set out at section 1(1) (general right of access) of FOIA. However, by failing to respond to the request and issue a refusal notice within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, the Commissioner finds that NYP has breached sections 10 (time for compliance) and 17 (refusal of a request) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View North Yorkshire Police
2 Nov 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Natural England on site works in a specific area, including all correspondence, letters and notes relating to conservation sites and protected species. Natural England initially refused the request on the basis of regulation 12(5)(d) and 12(4)(e) and later introduced regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR as a further basis for refusing the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the majority of the requested information was disclosed to the complainant but some information continued to be withheld on the basis of regulation 12(5)(f). The Commissioner’s decision is that Natural England has correctly applied the exception from disclosure at regulation 12(5)(f) to withhold this information. She requires no steps to be taken; however as the majority of information was provided outside of 20 working days she finds that Natural England did breach regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 5(2)
View Natural England
2 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding ministerial misconduct complaints. The Cabinet Office has asserted that the requested information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does hold the requested information and has failed to fully consider and respond to the request in accordance with section 1(1). In failing to comply with section 1(1), the Cabinet Office has breached section 10(1). The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to issue a fresh response to the request that does not deny that the information is held (ie the Cabinet Office needs to comply with section 1(1)(a) by confirming that the information is held) and then either disclose the information, or issue a refusal notice citing a reason to withhold the information. The Cabinet Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
2 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various items of information in respect of the Utility Regulator’s determination of the 2015-2020 Price Control applied to SONI (System Operator for electricity in Northern Ireland). The Utility Regulator provided some information but refused the request by virtue of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Utility Regulator has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) FOIA and that it was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(i) of the FOIA in respect of the disputed information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36
2 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a decision to release information about a cancelled procurement process. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet 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 Cabinet Office 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
View Cabinet Office
2 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in respect of proposals for the
Wilson Health and Wellbeing Campus. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Merton Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) has breached section 1(1) and10(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 CCG to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
2 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Nailstone Parish Council’s 2018/2019 budget. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nailstone Parish Council (the Council) has breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid refusal notice within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
2 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Councillor training. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nailstone Parish Council (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. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
2 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested 11 pieces of information from Nailstone Parish Council (the Council) including Councillor’s contact details, various financial information and a copy of the Council’s complaints procedure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid refusal notice within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
2 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested internal guidance documents sent to staff on the implementation of the Council’s Home to School Transport Policy. The Council refused the request on the basis that it would exceed the cost limit at section 12 of the FOIA to comply. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the provisions of section 12 to refuse the request and she also finds that the Council has attempted to provide advice and assistance to refine the request in line with its duties under section 16 of the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0266 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Surrey County Council
1 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of background documents provided to the Audit & Governance Committee. The Commissioner’s decision is that not only is the request vexatious, but that it would have been unreasonable in the circumstances for City of York Council to issue a fresh refusal notice. The Council is therefore entitled to rely on Section 17(6) of the FOIA to issue a fresh refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View York City Council
1 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a death in custody from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS confirmed that it held some information but refused to disclose it, citing the exemptions at sections 30(1) (investigations and proceedings), 38(1) (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 38(1) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Metropolitan Police Service
1 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to voluntary monetary contributions by financial services businesses to City of London Police. The Commissioner’s decision is that City of London 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 City of London Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View City of London Police
1 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to a complaint he had made. Oxfordshire County Council (the council) provided the information it held, but redacted the names of two council employees, due their names being third party personal data. The council initially relied on regulation 13 of the EIR to refuse the request, then later amended its refusal to section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is able to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to redact the names of its officers. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Oxfordshire County Council
1 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding the redevelopment of Basingstoke Leisure Park. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council withheld information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e) - commercial confidentiality and regulation 12(4)(b) – manifestly unreasonable on the grounds of cost. The Commissioner’s decision is that Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e), 12(4)(b), and the requirement of regulation 9(1) to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
1 Nov 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Shaw Education Trust (“the Trust”). The Trust refused to comply with the request in reliance on section 14(1) of the FOIA on the grounds that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request and requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
1 Nov 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested recorded information from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, which concerns the number and tenure of buildings known to have Category 2 cladding/insulation. Having first refused to disclose information falling within the scope of the complainant’s second question, in reliance on section 35 of the FOIA, the MHCLG has advised the Commissioner that it now considers the information published in September 2018 satisfies his request. The Commissioner has decided that the MHCLG has contravened the requirements of Regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide the complainant with the information he asked for in question 2’s of his request of 20 September 2017 and for failing to do so within the twenty day compliance period. The Commissioner has also decided that the MHCLG has contravened Regulation 9(1) by failing to provide the complainant with advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: EIR 16; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
31 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about mobile phone extraction from Hampshire Constabulary (“HC”). HC advised her that it considered the request to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not vexatious and she requires HC to either disclose the requested information or issue a fresh response, compliant with section 17 of the FOIA, which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
31 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to briefing notes prepared for liaisons or quarterly meetings with local MPs. The Council withheld the information under section 36(2) of the FOIA because it considered that disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 36(2) of the FOIA is engaged in respect of all of the withheld information. However, the public interest favours disclosure of some of the information that has been withheld. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: subject to paragraph 96 of the notice, disclose the information which has been highlighted in green on the confidential schedule of documents provided to the Council by the ICO with this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
31 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a two part request, the complainant has requested information about loans and interest rates associated with the Mersey Tunnels. Merseytravel has confirmed that it does not hold information related to part 1 of the request and has released some information related to part 2. The complainant disputes that Merseytravel has released to him all the information it holds that is relevant to part 2 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, Merseytravel has released to the complainant all the information it holds that falls within the scope of part 2 of the request. Merseytravel complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA as, in its response and internal review, it confirmed that it holds some broadly relevant information which it then communicated to the complainant, and that it holds no further relevant information. The Commissioner does not require Merseytravel to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
31 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an alleged incident involving a named individual. Kent Police provided links to some relevant information. It refused to confirm or deny holding the information requested at parts 1, 2 and 6 of the request, citing sections 30(3) (investigations and proceedings), 40(5) (personal information) and 24(2) (national security). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30(3) of the FOIA is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Accordingly, Kent Police was entitled to rely on section 30(3) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of parts 1, 2 and 6 of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Kent Police
31 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of various documents relating to administration and management. The Commissioner’s decision is that Borden Grammar School was entitled to rely on Section 14 of the FOIA (Vexatious) to refuse the request. However, it failed to issue an adequate refusal notice and has thus breached Section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken – although both the complainant and the School would be advised to note the comments she has made under the “Other Matters” section of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View BOURNE GRAMMAR SCHOOL
31 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in relation to abuse of process. Northumbria Police explained that it did not hold the requested information.The Commissioner's decision is that Northumbria Police was correct to state that it does not hold the requested information. However, the Commissioner considers that Northumbria Police has breached section 10(1) (Time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Northumbria police to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0274 struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 10(1); FOI 1
View Northumbria Police
31 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of all the responses received in relation to the Government’s consultation exercise on possible options for reporting and acting on child abuse and neglect. The Home Office withheld the requested information, citing section 35(1)(a) (the formulation or development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) was engaged, but that the public interest did not favour maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
Disclose the withheld information or issue a fresh response, compliant with section 17, which does not rely on section 35.
The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner 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 35
View Home Office
31 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about mobile phone extraction from Thames Valley Police (“TVP”). TVP advised her that it considered the request to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not vexatious and she requires TVP to either disclose the requested information or issue a fresh response, compliant with section 17 of the FOIA, which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Thames Valley Police
31 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information related to the Secretary of State’s decision not to block Bermuda’s Domestic Partnership Bill. The FCO withheld the information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) (international relations); 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy); 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), 35(1)(a), 42(1) or section 40(2) and in relation to the qualified exemptions the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions. The only exception to this finding is in relation to part of the submission to the Secretary of State which the Commissioner accepts is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a), but for which she has concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 35; FOI 40; FOI 42
30 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by Woking Borough Council (the council) that relates to the redevelopment of Victoria Square. The council refused to provide some information, citing the exception for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)) under the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(e) has been correctly applied to only some of the information but where the exception is engaged, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the Ernst & Young financial model document and the ‘Victoria Square Financial Implications’ presentation slides provided to Members before a briefing held on 2 November 2016.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Woking Borough Council
30 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the investigation report into the actions of a former Chief Executive (CEO) of the Student Loans Company (SLC). SLC responded, refusing to disclose the requested information under sections 31, 36, 40 and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SLC is entitled to refuse to disclose the information under section 40 of the FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Student Loans Company
30 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the University of Cambridge (‘the University’) particular communications and reports. The University has refused to comply with the request which it has categorised as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s request cannot be categorised as vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner requires the University to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request that does not rely on section 14(1) and which complies with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View The University of Cambridge
30 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Balen Report. 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0264 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
30 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any information held about a deceased celebrity from Merseyside Police. Merseyside Police disclosed some information with redactions under sections 40(2) (personal information) and also advised that some information was already available in the public domain, citing section 21(1) (information accessible to applicant by other means); the complainant did not dispute the citing of either of these. It also cited section 30 (investigations and proceedings).
During the Commissioner’s investigation, Merseyside Police revised its position advising that it would neither confirm or deny (“NCND”) holding any further information relying on sections 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 38(2) (health and safety) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Merseyside Police was entitled to rely on section 30(3) to NCND whether any further information is held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Merseyside Police
30 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the fees paid to specific acts at the Rochdale Feel Good Festival. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council withheld the information under section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly engaged section 43(2), and that the public interest test indicates the exemption should be maintained. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council