30 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the minutes of the Crossrail 2 Programme Board. Transport for London (TfL) failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so TfL 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 1
View Transport for London
30 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the CCGs ‘Shaping a Healthier Future’ plans particularly in relation to Ealing Hospital. North West London CCGs (the CCGs) refused to provide the requested information requested under section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCGs incorrectly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld draft report.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View NHS South West London Clinical Commissioning Group
30 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a letter he believes was sent to the European Commission by the then-Foreign Secretary. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office does not hold the requested information and has therefore complied with its duties under Section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
30 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) about the contractual arrangements for the A6 Manchester Airport Relief Road (A6MARR). The Council refused the request under the section 43(2) (commercial interests) exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) was correctly applied and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0238 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
30 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a review of the gastroenterology department at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH). The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS Improvement (NHSI) has correctly applied section 42(1) and section 41 to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 42
View NHS England
30 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a variety of information relating to a number of tendering exercises, grants and funding given by VisitBritain (VB). Initially VB disclosed some information, withheld other information citing sections 41 and 43 of the FOIA and confirmed for many elements of the request that the information is not held. During the Commissioner’s investigation VB continued to rely on section 41 and 43 but also claimed a late reliance on section 12 for those elements of the request for which it had previously given a ‘not held’ response. There was also a dispute over the interpretation of one element of the request. In relation to sections 12, 41 and 43 of the FOIA, the Commissioner has decided in this case that they are not engaged. In relation to the dispute over the interpretation of one element of the request, the Commissioner has decided that there are two alternative interpretations, the complainant’s interpretation should be accepted and this element of the request pro
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 41; FOI 43
30 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information with regards to the need for Grade A offices. City of York Council (the council) responded that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is for environmental information and that the council does not hold the requested information as per regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner did find that the council should have provided advice and assistance in accordance with regulation 9 of the EIR in order to provide some clarity to why the specific information requested was not held. As this clarity has been provided by the council to the Commissioner in response to her enquiries, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 9
View York City Council
30 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two information requests relating to a named individual. Hastings Borough Council provided the information it held for the first request and stated no information was held for the second request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council holds no further information in relation to the first request and that no information is held for the second request. The Commissioner’s does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Hastings Borough Council
30 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the names of members of a particular team and emails sent or received by this team. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) breached section 10(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1)(a) within the statutory time frame of twenty working days. DWP also breached section 17 of the Act as it did not inform the complainant that it was withholding information and did not cite the relevant exemption within the statutory time frame. As DWP did issue a revised response, albeit outside the statutory time for compliance, the Commissioner does not require any remedial steps to be taken in respect of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
29 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the council relating to the ownership of a lane in the county. The council argues that the request is vexatious given the previous history of requests and correspondence between the parties. It therefore initially applied section 14 of FOIA but amended this to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR during the course of the Commissioner's investigation of the complaint. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) to the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0245 no right of appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
29 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), including information relating to the pay and gender of prison staff working in a particular department. The MoJ confirmed it held the requested pay and gender information. However, it refused to disclose it, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ is entitled to rely on section 40(2) and is not obliged to disclose the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0237 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
29 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details about a policy to introduce free riding lessons as part of Greenwich’s Olympic legacy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Greenwich holds no information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
29 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding children who were referred to Telford and Wrekin Council’s Children Abused Through Exploitation (CATE) service. The Commissioner’s decision is that Telford and Wrekin 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 steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Telford and Wrekin Council
29 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to a report published by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (“HMCPSI”). HMCPSI disclosed some information and withheld the remainder, citing the exemption at section 33 (audit functions) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMCPSI was entitled to rely on section 33 to withhold the information. She requires no steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0261 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33
View HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate
29 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence between the public authority and government departments relating to a compensation payment to Cory Wheelabrator. Norfolk County Council disclosed some information and withheld personal data under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Norfolk County Council disclosed the relevant information that it holds and complied with regulation 5(1), issued a late internal review response and breached regulation 11(4) and, correctly withheld personal information under regulation 13(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(1)
View Norfolk County Council
29 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about how a contract provision governing the management of trees by Sheffield City Council (‘the Council’) might operate in the future. The Council said that it did not hold any information from which the request could be answered. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Sheffield City Council
26 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested specific information about a waste management scheme provided by a specific firm. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Croydon 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 public authority 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 London Borough of Croydon
26 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the process which the Parish Council uses to conduct internal reviews of information requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that Potto Parish Council’s response did not amount to discharging its duty under Section 1 of the FOIA and it therefore breached Section 1 of the FOIA. As the Commissioner considers that the complainant has access to all the information that the Parish Council holds within the scope of his request, she does not require the Parish Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
26 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the NLMK1 life-raft. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (‘the MCA’) has categorised the requests as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA and has refused to comply with them. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s requests are vexatious and the MCA is not obliged to comply with them. The Commissioner does not require the MCA to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0263 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Maritime and Coastguard Agency
26 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning ambulance journeys taken by the complainant and her mother and a particular report concerning the complainant’s mother. West Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (‘WMAS’) withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considered it to be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: WMAS cannot rely on the provisions under section 40 of the FOIA to withhold the requested information, if held, or to neither confirm nor deny the information is held. This is because the information cannot be categorised as personal data. However, WMAS can rely on section 41(2) to neither confirm nor deny the information is held. This is because confirmation or denial would constitute an actionable breach of confidence. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0260 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust
26 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from East Lindsey District Council (the Council) regarding rents charged for the Council’s kiosks/retail units at Grand Parade Entrance to Tower Gardens, Skegness. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly engaged section 43(2) (commercial interests) 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 East Lindsey District Council
26 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about reviews and assessments carried out on systems within South Wales Police’s Data Protection Department. Following clarification of the request South Wales Police stated that it did not hold any information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, South Wales Police does not hold any recorded information relevant to the request. However, the Commissioner finds that South Wales Police breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View South Wales Police
26 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Waverley Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to the Waverley Borough Council Local Plan. Specifically, he wished to be provided with correspondence between the Planning Inspectorate and the Council between particular dates. The Council disclosed some of the correspondence during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the remainder of the information under regulation 12(5)(d) because disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of proceedings. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Waverley Borough Council
26 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recorded information held by Cheshire East Council concerning the suspension and resignation of the Council’s former Monitoring Officer. The Council has refused to comply with the complainant’s request on the grounds that all of the information is subject to the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the FOIA and certain pieces are subject to the section 41 exemption.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire East Council has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to all of the information requested by the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0246 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cheshire East Council
26 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested pre-planning application information relating to a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Croydon (“the London Borough”) has now disclosed all the information within the scope of the request. However she also finds that the London Borough failed to issue an adequate refusal notice and therefore breached Regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5(1)
View London Borough of Croydon
26 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Cabinet Office regarding the Iraq Inquiry. The Cabinet Office stated that it does not hold any further information to that previously provided to the complainant. In addition it subsequently relied on section 21 (information reasonably accessible to the applicant) since it had provided the complainant with the relevant information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 21 regarding the information held falling within the scope of the request. She also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held. The Commissioner finds that the Cabinet Office breached section 10(1) by not complying with section 1(1)(a) within the statutory timeframe. She also finds that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) as it did not inform the complainant that it was relying on section 21.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 21
View Cabinet Office
25 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about two parties who were allegedly denied access to the UK from the Home Office (the “HO”). The HO provided some general information but would neither confirm nor deny holding the remainder citing section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5) is properly engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
25 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about application for readerships at Edge Hill University over the last six years. The University disclosed some information to the complainant but considered it could not comply with the remaining parts of the request – information on research funding, research-based articles and supervision – without exceeding the appropriate cost limit under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1). However, she finds the University breached section 16 of the FOIA by failing to provide advice and assistance to the complainant to refine the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide advice and assistance to the complainant to assist them in refining their request where it is possible to do so.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Edge Hill University
25 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the analysis of a public consultation from Arun District Council. The Council directed the complainant to where some information was publicly accessible, and advised that no further relevant information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that no further relevant information is held by the Council besides that already publicly accessible. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Arun District Council
25 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in relation to a property transaction between the public authority and Elim Pentecostal Church. The public authority revealed that it had published most of the information in scope save a small amount of financial information in connection to the value of the properties. It considered this information exempt on the basis of the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) EIR. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(5)(e).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Merton Council
25 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested mapping exercise information relating to the Northern Ireland/Ireland border. The Department for Exiting the European Union (“DExEU”) refused to provide this citing section 35 (formulation and development of government policy) and section 27 (international relations) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that DExEU is entitled to rely on section 35 as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0253 withdraw.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Exiting the European Union
25 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a review of waiting list times at the Trust. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Trust (the Trust) has correctly applied section 36(2)(c) - prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, but that the public interest favours disclosure. She further finds that section 31(1)(g) – law enforcement, is not engaged. The complainant has accepted that section 40(2) – personal data, could apply to personal information of patients and staff below board level. However, the Commissioner finds that the Trust has incorrectly applied section 40(2) to the majority of the information in the main body of the report. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose pages 1 – 13 of the requested information aside from names and job titles. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision no
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust
24 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the initial assessment of applications to the University’s school of medicine. The University refused the request citing the exemption provided by section 43(2) – prejudice to commercial interests, as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has not demonstrated that disclosing the information would be likely to prejudice its commercial interests. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information as identified in its submission to the Commissioner dated 12 July 2018.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Queen Mary University of London
24 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Derry City and Strabane District Council (“the Council”) regarding a former workhouse graveyard in Derry. The Council provided the complainant with some information in relation to her 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
24 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested how much the BBC paid as a disruption fee to a named individual. 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
24 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Hambleton District Council on traffic mitigation in relation to development sites known as NM5E and NM5C. The Council’s position is that the complainant has not requested recorded information, therefore it cannot be considered as a valid information request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request is a valid information request and the Council should have dealt with it in compliance with the EIR. The Commissioner also found that the Council breached Regulation 5(2) by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the twenty day compliance period. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the complainant under the EIR, treating the request as a valid request for information. 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 certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant t
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
24 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the publication of radio transcripts. 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
24 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Local Government
& Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) about the cost to the public
authority of his own complaint case. The LGSCO’s position is that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the LGSCO does not hold the requested information and therefore has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
24 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics on roadside breath tests for suspected drunken driving, including the reason for the stop and results of the breath test. The complainant also requested meeting minutes relating to Love Supreme Jazz Festival. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the requests within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to issue a substantive response to both requests in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sussex Police
24 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the second report produced by Sir Robert Naylor on NHS estates in London. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) initially refused the request on the basis of section 43 and later also sought to rely on sections 41 and 35 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 35(1)(a) exemption is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner has therefore not gone on to consider the use of the other exemptions and she does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
24 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a named Jobcentre manager. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) refused to confirm or deny whether the information is held under section 40(5) of the Act The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny whether information is held falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for Work and Pensions
24 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In 12 requests, the complainant has requested information associated with the role of Public Health England (PHE) in the response to the Ebola crisis in 2014-2015. PHE indicated to the complainant that it did not hold most of the requested information and that the information it did hold is exempt from release under section 24(1) of the FOIA (national security) or section 40(2) (third person personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: PHE breached section 1(1)(a) with regard to the majority of the parts of requests 9, and requests 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. PHE complied with section 1(1)(a) with regard to one part of request 9. PHE breached section 1(1)(b) with regard to four parts of request 9 and requests 12 and 15. PHE has complied with section 1(1)(b) with regard to request 14. PHE breached section 10(1) with regard to: four parts of request 9 and requests 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20. PHE complied with section 10(1) with regard to on
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 24; FOI 40
View UK Health Security Agency
24 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Thorpe trial papers. The National Archives (TNA) initially refused the request under section 38 (health and safety) and section 40(2) (third party personal data) but during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation cited section 31 – law enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has demonstrated that sections 31(1)(a)(b) and (c) are engaged in relation to the withheld information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner has not gone on to consider the application of the exemptions at section 38 and 40. The Commissioner also found that TNA breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The National Archives
23 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with its contract with Amey plc. Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’) relied on section 22(1) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information (information intended for future publication). The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Council can rely on section 22(1) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information, and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Council breached section 17(3) as it did not provide the complainant with public interest arguments associated with its application of section 22(1), in either its response or internal review. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 22
View Trafford Council
23 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about any payments made to voluntary organisations by Milton Keynes Council during the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 financial years. The Council responded that it was unable to determine whether any recorded information was held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council clarified that the determination of whether any recorded information is held would exceed the appropriate limit provided for section 12. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly refused to comply with the request under section 12(2), and has complied with the requirement of section 16(1). However, in failing to issue a refusal notice within the time for compliance, the Council breached section 17(1). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Milton Keynes Council
23 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a witness statement held by Halton Borough Council. The Council withheld the information under sections 40(2) and 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Halton Council
23 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has submitted a four requests for information to Cheshire East Council. The complainant’s requests concern three planning applications relating to land at Henbury, land Between Whirley Road and Chelford Road, Macclesfield and land to the South of Chelford Road. Having refused to comply with the complainant’s request in reliance on section 14(1) of the FOIA, the Council reviewed its position and has determined that it should instead rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire East Council has correctly applied the exception to disclosure provided by Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to complainant’s requests 1, 2 and 4.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Cheshire East Council
23 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants have made two requests for information from The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham about electricity supplied by the Landlord Controlled system. LBBD has refused to comply with the requests relying on section 14(1) – vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBBD is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request and that having failed to respond to the request submitted on 15 February 2018 within 20 working days, LBBD has breached section 10 of the FOIA. She requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to both requests submitted by the complainant which do not rely on section 14.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 c
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Barking and Dagenham Council
22 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from City of Norwich School (‘CNS’) copies of two specific sub-policy documents that he considers CNS had adopted and was following at the time of his request. CNS’s position is that it does not hold the sub-policy documents in question. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, CNS does not hold the information that the complainant has requested under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. CNS breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not confirm that it did not hold the information within 20 working days of receiving the request. CNS complied with section 16(1) as it offered the complainant adequate advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require CNS to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
22 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman about the 2012 report into the death of the complainant’s mother, and in particular whether Barking Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust have confirmed that they will not use the report. The Commissioner’s decision is that Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman 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 The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman