8 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information in respect of the choice of independent investigators tasked with investigating claims of bullying within the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government provided some information but withheld the remaining information in reliance on section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) FOIA and that it was entitled to rely on section 40(2) FOIA in respect of the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Welsh Government
5 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to ‘person under train’ incidents. The Commissioner’s decision is that Transport for London (TfL) was incorrect to cite section 38 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the requested information. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0234 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Transport for London
5 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the maintenance schedule for a particular road. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Havering has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of its initial response within 40 working days and has thus breached Regulation 11 of the Environmental Information Regulations. It also failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: complete its reconsideration of the initial response and inform the complainant of the outcome of that reconsideration in accordance with Regulation 11 of EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Havering
4 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to reported safety incidents since January 2013 and any correspondence between the Broads Authority (the authority) and rowing clubs on matters of safety. Initially the authority applied section 12 of the FOIA but at the internal review stage provided what it believed to be the required information. During the Commissioner’s investigation the authority confirmed that for questions 1 and 3 of the request it wished to rely on section 12 of the FOIA. For question 2, it confirmed that it does not hold any further recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority is entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA for questions 1 and 3. For question 2, the Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the authority does not hold any further recorded information. In relation to section 16 of the FOIA, the Commissioner does not consider the authority has provided sufficient advice and assistance. She therefore
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Broads Authority
4 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant’s request concerns information that the Regulator of Social Housing (‘RSH’) used when coming to a conclusion on a complaint he submitted to it about Selwood Housing. RSH released some information and withheld some under section 31 (law enforcement), section 40(2) (third person personal data) and section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information RSH has withheld engages the exemptions under sections 31(1)(g), 40(1) and 40(2) and, with regard to section 31(1)(g), the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require RSH to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0250 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View Regulator of Social Housing
4 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland (“EONI”) regarding the Electoral Authorities Act 1989. The EONI stated that it does not hold any recorded information within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the EONI does not hold any additional information relevant to the complainant’s request. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
4 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request to Salford City Council (the Council) for information relating Stama Development (Salford) Limited and the development of the land at Crescent Police Station, Salford. The Council refused to comply with the request under regulation 12(4)(b) EIR as it considers the request to be manifestly unreasonable and in the alternative it considers regulation 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e), 12(5)(f) and 13(2) EIR would apply to some of the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to handle the request under EIR rather than FOIA. She considers that the Council incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(b) EIR and regulation 13 EIR to some of the redactions it has been applied to. The Council was however correct to apply regulation 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e) and regulation 13 EIR to the remaining redactions. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information in redacted format (as marked on the copy
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13
View Salford City Council
4 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant’s request concerns the ‘Streets Ahead’ contract Sheffield City Council (‘the Council’) has with Amey. He has requested unredacted versions of all those schedules that had not been published at the time of his request, and for the release of the information that the Council had redacted from those schedules it had published at the time of the request. The Council considered the request under the FOIA and applied particular exemptions to the requested information. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council reconsidered its approach to the request and considered it under the EIR. Its revised position is that, at the time it was submitted, the Council was not obliged to comply with the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Council has categorised the request as manifestly unreasonable by virtue of it being a vexatious request due to the disproportionate burden associated with complying with it. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: At the ti
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14; EIR 9
View Sheffield City Council
4 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Barnet Council (the council) about alterations to a particular box junction. The council has disclosed some of the requested information and has stated that it holds no further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that not all of the requests were valid EIR requests and of those which were valid, on the balance of probabilities, the council has now disclosed all of the information it holds. The Commissioner considers that some of the requested information was disclosed outside of the 20 working day statutory time frame and accordingly the council has breached regulation 5 EIR. She also considers that the internal review response was issued outside of the 40 working day statutory time frame and therefore the council has also breached regulation 11 EIR. Finally, the Commissioner is satisfied that the council is entitled to redact the names of junior staff from the disclosur
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5
View Barnet Council
4 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the gate at Spring Rise from the Royal Holloway, University of London (the University). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority did not deal with the request in accordance with the FOIA. This is because the public authority provided its response outside the statutory 20 working days and it has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
4 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Devon County Council information related to an anonymous telephone call complaining about a piece of land owned by the complainant. The Council provided the complainant with some information and decided to withhold the remainder claiming that it contained personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which would contravene the data protection principles.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA when it decided to withhold part of the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0225 dismissed.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Devon County Council
4 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of expenses claimed by members of the Parole Board’s management committee. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parole Board for England and Wales (the PBEW) 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 PBEW to issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Parole Board
4 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a non-disclosure agreement between Surrey Police and Vodafone. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey 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 Surrey Police to issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Surrey Police
4 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to pest control activity at a particular property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (“LBTH”) is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds that information and can rely on regulation 13 (unfair disclosure of personal data) of the EIR as its basis for doing so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
4 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to reported safety incidents since January 2013 and any correspondence between the Broads Authority (the authority) and rowing clubs on matters of safety. Initially the authority applied section 12 of the FOIA but at the internal review stage provided what it believed to be the required information. During the Commissioner’s investigation the authority confirmed that for questions 1 and 3 of the request it wished to rely on section 12 of the FOIA. For question 2, it confirmed that it does not hold any further recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority is entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA for questions 1 and 3. For question 2, the Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the authority does not hold any further recorded information. In relation to section 16 of the FOIA, the Commissioner does not consider the authority has provided sufficient advice and assistance. She therefore
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Broads Authority
4 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the funding for the NHS Estates and Facilities guidance programme. The Department of Health & Social Care (the DH) confirmed that it did not hold any further information. The complainant considered that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DH does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require the DH to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department of Health and Social Care
3 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on various types of treatments used on those detained in mental health settings. NHS Digital initially refused the request on the basis of section 21, later amending its position to rely on section 12 as complying with the request would exceed the cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS Digital applied section 12(1) incorrectly as it did not reasonably demonstrate that the cost of the request would exceed the limit. She also finds that in failing to advise the complainant on how to refine his request to bring it within the cost limit, NHS Digital breached section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to write to the complainant with a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View NHS England
3 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a licence agreement relating to the use of Lytham Green. Fylde Borough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for commercial interests (section 43). The Commissioner’s decision is that Fylde Borough Council has correctly withheld information under section 43(2) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Fylde Borough Council
3 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about bullying, health and safety and the minutes of meetings of the Governing Body of the Llanidloes C P School (‘the School’). The School provided some information and withheld the minutes under section 21 of the FOIA. The School later provided copies of the minutes, subject to some information being redacted under section 40(2). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the School acknowledged that some of the information withheld was the complainant’s own personal data, and therefore exempt under section 40(1). The Commissioner has determined that the School correctly applied section 40(1) to some information. The Commissioner also finds that the School breached section 10 of the FOIA in failing to respond to the request within the required timescales. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
3 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications between Ofcom and the Phonepaid Services Authority on the subject of refund methods for unauthorised debts by premium rate services. The request was to include legal advice. Ofcom identified information which related to a specific consumer complaint that had been received but refused to provide this on the basis of section 36, 42 and 44 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofcom has correctly engaged section 42 in relation to the legal advice it holds and section 36 in relation to other exchanges between itself and the Phonepaid Services Authority. In both cases the Commissioner finds that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 42
View Ofcom
2 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about possession proceedings and possession orders from the Ministry of Justice (the “MOJ”). The MOJ refused to provide the requested information saying that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in respect of parts (1) to (5) of the request it was entitled to rely on section 12(1). However, she does not agree that parts (6) and (7) can be aggregated with the rest. The MOJ is required to issue a fresh response in respect of parts (6) and (7) of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
1 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the legal advice the DfE holds in relation to the legality of section 444 of the Education Act for parents who take their children out of school to visit relatives overseas. The DfE responded refusing to disclose the requested information citing section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information under section 42 of the FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0214 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Department for Education
1 Oct 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a company analysis of responses to a consultation on the Gender Identity Services. NHS England (NHSE) cited section 22 (intended for future publication) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSE correctly applied section 22(1) of the FOIA in its response to the request. The information has now been published.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View NHS England
1 Oct 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a viability report and associated documents for a site in Hastings. The council refused the request on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR applies (commercial confidentiality). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply the exception to some of the information, however it was not correct to apply the exception to the entirety of the viability report and its appendices. She has also decided that the public interest rests in withholding the information which she has identified as falling within the scope of the exception. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the information outlined in the annex to this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Hastings Borough Council
1 Oct 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the siting of telecommunications equipment on Forsythia House. Following the Commissioner’s involvement Lewisham Borough Council (‘the Council’) released some information and its position, which the complainant disputes, is that it holds no further relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely that further information is held, and that the Council has failed to fully consider and respond to the request in accordance with its obligation at regulation 5(1) (duty to make environmental information available on request). In addition, as the responses were not communicated within the time limits set out in the legislation, the Commissioner finds the Council has breached regulations 5(2) and 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Carry out further searches for information falling within the scope of t
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1)
View Lewisham Council
28 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ’s) handling of a previous request for information. The MoJ refused to provide the requested information, citing section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was not entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c). She found that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) are engaged but that the public interest favours releasing the requested information. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information, a copy of which was provided to the Commissioner, with personal data, for example of the complainant and junior officials, redacted.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Ministry of Justice
28 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from North Kesteven District Council (the Council) information relating to complaints the Council received concerning a specific dog breeding/puppy farm and the responses the Council sent to each complainant during a period of time.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the information to part 1 of the request under section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View North Kesteven District Council
28 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked the public authority to confirm whether there were any agreements to support any rebel group prior to the overthrow of the Charles Taylor led Liberian government and for a copy of any document setting out the terms of such support. Relying on sections 27(4), 23(5) and 24(2) FOIA, the public authority neither confirmed nor denied whether it held any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the provisions in sections 23(5) and 24(2) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
27 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information regarding “compliance interviews” from the Department for Work and Pensions. It relied on section 12 (costs) to withhold requested information, the Commissioner’s decision is that it was correct to do so. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0243 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department for Work and Pensions
27 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to an Inn and its directors, one of whom is the complainant. Minting and Gautby Parish Council (the council) provided information to the complainant, however the complainant considered more was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
27 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Lewisham Council about housing benefit claims. Lewisham Council disclosed some information within the scope of the request and for the remainder has relied on section 12 FOIA – costs of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lewisham Council is entitled to rely on section 12in respect of the entire request. Lewisham Council responded to the request outside of the statutory 20 day time limit and accordingly has breached section 10 FOIA. The Commissioner also notes that the complainant was not provided with any advice and assistance in line with the duty set out at section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner considers that Lewisham Council has therefore also breached section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Lewisham Council (the council) to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Lewisham Council
27 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information about discussions between FCO staff in France and the French authorities on the issuing Cartes de Sejour to British nationals residing in France. The FCO provided some information in response to the request but sought to withhold further information on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a) (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the FCO disclosed a small portion of information which it had previously sought to withhold. However, it continued to withhold further information on the basis of the above exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40
27 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Employment and Support Allowance First Tier Tribunal appeals. The DWP relied on sections 22 (future publication) and 12 (costs) not to provide the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP reliance on the said sections was correct.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 22
View Department for Work and Pensions
27 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to the Bianca Statue outside the Theatre Royal, Plymouth. Plymouth City Council (the council) provided the information it held. The Complainant considered that the council had not provided everything requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided all the information it holds relevant to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Plymouth City Council
27 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of who recommended five individuals for honours. The Cabinet Office said that it only held information relating to one individual, and refused to disclose that information under section 37(1)(b) (the conferring by the Crown of an honour or dignity). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does not hold information in respect of four of the five individuals named. The Commissioner also finds that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 37(1)(b) with regard to the withheld information. She does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
26 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a series of requests about various specified locations in Ramsey, Cambridgeshire. Cambridgeshire County Council refused to comply with the requests under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act and regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The complainant subsequently contested the Council’s refusal. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly refused the requests under section 14(1) and regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); FOI 14
View Cambridgeshire County Council
26 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the use of Tasers against children. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey 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 Surrey Police issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Surrey Police
26 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the handling of sensitive medical information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police 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 Staffordshire Police to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Staffordshire Police
26 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding Jobcentre managers visiting 10 Downing Street. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) initially informed the complainant that it did not hold the information, however, it subsequently relied on section 12 of the Act as collating the information would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the Act to refuse to comply with the request, however, she considers that DWP did not provide adequate advice and assistance as required under section 16. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance to aid him in making a refined request that falls within the appropriate limit. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
25 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the statements forming part of the inquest file relating to an investigation undertaken by the Historical Enquiries Team (HET), then part of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). PSNI refused the request in reliance on sections 30(1)(a)(i) and 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a)(i) and she does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
25 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a valuation report from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire and Swindon (the “OPCC”). The OPCC refused to provide it on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OPCC has failed to evidence that the exemption is engaged. The OPCC is therefore required to disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
25 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a specified ‘National Forum’ file. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) responded and said that it no longer held the requested file because it had been destroyed in February 2018, in accordance with the relevant retention and disposal schedule. The Commissioner’s decision is, on the balance of probabilities, that the MOJ no longer holds the requested file on account of its destruction. The Commissioner does not requires the MOJ to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
25 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a full copy of an agreement between Brighton and Hove City Council and Brighton and Hove Seaside Community Homes Ltd. The Commissioner’s decision is that Brighton and Hove City Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 43(2) – commercial interests, to the redacted information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Brighton and Hove City Council
25 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a building fire that occurred in 1999. Huntingdonshire District Council responded by denying that it holds the requested information, but directed the complainant to another public authority that may hold some of it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Huntingdonshire District Council
25 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about various engineering solutions used to maintain trees in accordance with a specified tree management plan. Sheffield City Council (the ‘Council’) cited regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request, on the grounds that it was manifestly unreasonable, due to the significant burden it would impose on the Council in terms of cost. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. She finds that the public interest lies in maintaining the Council’s application of this exception. However, she also finds that the Council breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to carry out an internal review within the statutory 40 working days’ time limit.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b)
View Sheffield City Council
25 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Islington Council various information relating to an area of land at Windsor Street, London N1. In response to the request, and during the Commissioner’s investigation, the requested information was received by the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Islington Council has breached Regulations 5(2) and 11(4) of the EIR by failing to respond to the initial and internal review requests within the statutory time limits. The Commissioner does not require Islington Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation in this case. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0227 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2)
View Islington Council
25 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about disposal of Council land in Northampton Town Centre (known as the Greyfriars site) and the selection process of the preferred developer. The Council supplied some information but withheld the remainder under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR – confidentiality of commercial information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northampton Borough Council is correct to engage regulation 12(5)(e) for questions 3, 7 and 18 of the request, and that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. She finds that the exception is not engaged for questions 2 and 9. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the identity of the bidders who responded to the Council’s stage 1 expression of interest for the Greyfriars site; disclose the identity of the bidders who submitted full tenders in response to the Council’s stage 2 invitati
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View West Northamptonshire Council
24 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Wentworth Street car park. Ryedale District Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the FOIA exemptions for prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs (section 36), information provided in confidence (section 41), legal professional privilege (section 42) and commercial interests (section 43(2)). During the Commissioner’s investigation the council reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(e), regulation 12(5)(b) and regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that Ryedale District Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14 of the EIR, correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information in parts 1 and 3 of the request and failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged and wrongly withheld the information in part 2 of the request. The Commissioner requires the pu
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5(1)
24 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Bradford City Council (“the Council”) relating to any investigation which may have been carried out by the Council in relation to an alleged incident at a specific school in 2012. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the information which it holds under section 40(2) of the FOIA because it comprises the personal data of third parties. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0222 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
24 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that Wiston Parish Council holds no further information beyond that which has already been provided to the complainant. However, it failed to carry out a reconsideration of its initial response to the request when asked to do so by the requestor and has therefore breached Regulation 11 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); FOI 11