24 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) including information about appropriate addresses for government departments. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, the MoJ breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As a response has been provided, the Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 8
View Ministry of Justice
24 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to the Ministerial Code. The Cabinet Office has refused the request relying on section 12 FOIA – costs of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 12. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Cabinet Office
24 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) information relating to the advice given to Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) when issuing planning permissions. MHCLG provided some information and stated that other information was not held
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MHCLG does not hold any additional information relevant to the request.
The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
24 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Rural Payments Agency’s (RPA) collation and processing of land data and in particular relating to land parcels on a particular estate. Initially the RPA stated that the information is not held. It then changed its position at the internal review stage and said that the information is held but exempt from disclosure under regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(e) and 13 of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation the RPA’s position changed again. It was however then later established that the RPA does hold recorded information falling within the scope of the request and that it considered this information was exempt from disclosure under regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that although regulation 12(4)(e)of the EIR applies, the public interest in favouring of maintaining this exception is outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. In relation to the RPA’s application of regulation 12(5
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Rural Payments Agency
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
24 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Boston Borough Council (the Council) information in relation to Boston Town Area Committee (BTAC) budget. The Council responded to the complainant with the information that it considered to fall within the scope of the request. However, the complainant was not content with the amount of the information received.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided the complainant with all of the information which it holds falling within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Boston Borough Council
24 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested details of complaints received and actiontaken in respect of a specific parcel of land. Carmarthenshire CountyCouncil (‘the Council’) refused to confirm or deny whether it held theinformation by virtue of Regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’sdecision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 13(5) to therequest. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Carmarthenshire County Council
24 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding vehicle crossovers in several specified streets. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Bromley 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 London Borough 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 Bromley Council
24 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various items of information in respect of Translink’s spending on its bus and train week campaign for 2017. Translink provided some information but withheld the amount of money paid to one media organisation and two named celebrities by virtue of section 43(2) of the FOIA. It disclosed further information during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation and informed the Commissioner that it was also relying on section 40(2) in respect of the two named individuals. The Commissioner’s decision is that Translink was entitled to rely on section 43 of the FOIA in respect of the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
24 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to whether the Disclosure and Barring Unit complies with the Uniform Commercial Code. The Disclosure and Barring Unit provided some information and explained that it did not hold any further information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Disclosure and Barring Unit is correct to state that it does not hold any further information. The Commissioner therefore considers that it has not breached section 1 (right to information) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require the Disclosure and Barring Unit to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Disclosure and Barring Services
21 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Doncaster Council (the Council) seeking a copy of a particular letter sent by Sajid Javid, the then Communities Secretary, and also seeking copies of emails sent or received by the Council’s Chief Executive and Mayor concerning the subject of devolution in Yorkshire. The Council disclosed the copy of the letter sent by Mr Javid. However, it sought to withhold the remaining information falling within scope of the request on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(ii) (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed all of the information it was seeking to withhold on the basis of this exemption with the exception of one email chain. The Commissioner has concluded that this email chain is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining this exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Doncaster Council
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about parties who have deposited funds to satisfy section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA). The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder, citing section 41 (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ failed to demonstrate that the exemption in section 41 of the FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Ministry of Justice
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Bedfordshire Police’s capabilities with regard to utilising the “Internet of Things” for law enforcement purposes. Bedfordshire Police would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemption at section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bedfordshire Police was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner requires Bedfordshire Police to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and disclose or refuse any information identified.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Bedfordshire Police
20 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the correspondence from a named Professor. Durham University (the University) confirmed that they did not hold any further information. The complainant considered that more information must be held. During the investigation, the University disclosed some information redacting the personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University does not hold any further information in this case and the redacted information was correctly withheld under section 40(2)-personal information. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View University of Durham
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested figures from NHS England (NHSE) about a decision associated with a Population Health Management IG Support Tool work programme. At the date of this notice, NHSE has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: NHSE has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has not provided a response to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires NHSE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request that complies with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
20 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the correspondence from a named Professor. Durham University (the University) initially confirmed that it did not hold any information but on internal review found and disclosed some information. The complainant considered that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View University of Durham
20 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Terms and Conditions of employment, in particular relating to Enforcement Staff. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) has correctly cited section 14(1) (vexatious request). The Commissioner does not require DVSA to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0206 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Cheshire Constabulary’s capabilities with regard to utilising the “Internet of Things” for law enforcement purposes. Cheshire Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemption at section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire Constabulary was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner requires Cheshire Constabulary to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and disclose or refuse any information identified.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Cheshire Constabulary
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Thames Valley Police’s capabilities with regard to utilising the “Internet of Things” for law enforcement purposes. Thames Valley Police would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemption at section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thames Valley Police was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner requires Thames Valley Police to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and disclose or refuse any information identified.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Thames Valley Police
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Northamptonshire Police’s capabilities with regard to utilising the “Internet of Things” for law enforcement purposes. Northamptonshire Police would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemption at section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northamptonshire Police was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner requires Northamptonshire Police to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and disclose or refuse any information identified.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Northamptonshire Police
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about British Transport Police’s capabilities with regard to utilising the “Internet of Things” for law enforcement purposes. British Transport Police would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemption at section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that British Transport Police was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner requires British Transport Police to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and disclose or refuse any information identified.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View British Transport Police
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about British Transport Police’s capabilities with regard to utilising the “Internet of Things” for law enforcement purposes. British Transport Police would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemption at section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that British Transport Police was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner requires British Transport Police to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and disclose or refuse any information identified.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View British Transport Police
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Cheshire Constabulary’s capabilities with regard to utilising the “Internet of Things” for law enforcement purposes. Cheshire Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemption at section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire Constabulary was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner requires Cheshire Constabulary to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and disclose or refuse any information identified.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Cheshire Constabulary
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Bedfordshire Police’s capabilities with regard to utilising the “Internet of Things” for law enforcement purposes. Bedfordshire Police would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemption at section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bedfordshire Police was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner requires Bedfordshire Police to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and disclose or refuse any information identified.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Bedfordshire Police
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Cambridgeshire Constabulary’s capabilities with regard to utilising the “Internet of Things” for law enforcement purposes. Cambridgeshire Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemption at section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridgeshire Constabulary was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner requires Cambridgeshire Constabulary to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and disclose or refuse any information identified.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Hampshire Constabulary’s capabilities with regard to utilising the “Internet of Things” for law enforcement purposes. Hampshire Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemption at section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner requires Hampshire Constabulary to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and disclose or refuse any information identified.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Cambridgeshire Constabulary’s capabilities with regard to utilising the “Internet of Things” for law enforcement purposes. Cambridgeshire Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemption at section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridgeshire Constabulary was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner requires Cambridgeshire Constabulary to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and disclose or refuse any information identified.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Staffordshire Police’s capabilities with regard to utilising the “Internet of Things” for law enforcement purposes. Staffordshire Police would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemption at section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner requires Staffordshire Police to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and disclose or refuse any information identified.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Staffordshire Police
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Staffordshire Police’s capabilities with regard to utilising the “Internet of Things” for law enforcement purposes. Staffordshire Police would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemption at section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner requires Staffordshire Police to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and disclose or refuse any information identified.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Staffordshire Police
20 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made an eight part request on 9 April 2017, a four part request on 19 April 2017, and an eight part request on 20 April 2017. The requests are for information relating to reports and enquiries concerning the security and availability of drugs at Queen’s Hospital, Romford. Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) provided some of the requested information, but has explained that it does not hold other information falling within the scope of the requests. The Trust has also refused to provide some of the requested information under sections 12(1) and 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has considered whether the Trust is entitled to rely on sections 12(1) and 14(1) to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner has also consider whether the Trust has complied with its obligations under sections 1(1), 10(1), 16(1) and 17(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on 14(1) of the FOIA
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 14; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
20 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to the Community Asset Transfer of Carnegie Library. The public authority has relied on the exemption at section 43(2) FOIA to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was not entitled to rely on the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View London Borough of Lambeth
19 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made request for data on the numbers of recorded deaths of rough sleepers and the number of officers who had faced disciplinary action for racist behaviour. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police (“the Police”) failed to respond to either request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Police to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue substantive responses, under the FOIA, to both requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sussex Police
19 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a variety of information relating to a number of tender exercises, grant applications and contracts in two separate requests. Visit Britain refused to comply with both requests citing section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Visit Britain is entitled to refuse to comply with both requests in accordance with section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
19 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a contract between Sheffield City Council (“the Council”) and a contractor. The Council disclosed some information and said that the remainder was exempt from disclosure by virtue of the exemption at section 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply the exemption at section 42(1) FOIA to the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Sheffield City Council
19 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) seeking information about the UK’s involvement in training the Libyan coastguard. DFID provided him with some of the information falling within the scope of his request but sought to withhold further information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of these exemptions and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Department for International Development
19 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a meeting of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Foundation Trust Council of Governors held on 13 September 2017. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridgeshire & Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (the trust) has incorrectly relied on section 12 (cost limits) to withhold the requested information. As the information is no longer held, the Commissioner is unable to order its disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that the trust has breached section 10 (1) of the FOIA as it did not provide a response within the specified timescale. As the trust has provided a response no further steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
View Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust
19 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Wandsworth (“the Council”) relating to advice obtained by the Council on charging leaseholders for the cost of attaching sprinklers in blocks of ten or more storeys. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the information under section 42(1) of the FOIA as it is subject to legal professional privilege. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View London Borough of Wandsworth
19 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant through his MP requested information in relation to the Council’s agreements and other arrangements with United Utilities (UU) including copies of all communication, notes, meeting agendas and minutes of the meetings between the Council and UU, and copies of all communication, notes, meeting agendas and minutes of the meetings between the Council and Environment Agency (EA). The Council refused to comply with the request as it considered it to be manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) and the public interest favours maintaining the exception.
The Commissioner also finds that in failing to respond to the request for environmental information within the statutory timeline, the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compli
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2)
View West Lancashire Borough Council
19 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the London Borough of Bromley’s complaints policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bromley Council
19 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding Hornsey Town Hall. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Haringey failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request which it gave the reference number LBH/7577418.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Haringey Council
19 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Secretary of State for Justice’s decision not to issue, or be a party to, the judicial review proceedings against the Parole Board’s ruling to release John Worboys (a convicted sex offender also known as the ‘Black Cab Rapist’) from prison. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) provided the cost information but refused to provide the legal advice, citing section 42(1) of FOIA – legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has correctly withheld the information under section 42 of FOIA. She does not require the MOJ to take any steps as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0205 appeal dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/1892/2019 PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Ministry of Justice
18 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Through nine queries, the complainant has requested information from Bishop Anthony Educational Trust (BAET) about data protection matters. BAET provided answers to two of the questions, said it does not hold information in recorded form with regard to five of the requests, applied section 14(1) (vexatious request) to one request and appeared to rely on section 42(2) (legal professional privilege) to refuse to address the remaining request. The Commissioner’s decision is that: On the balance of probabilities BAET does not hold information within the scope of requests 3 and 6 and has complied with section 1(1) with regards to these requests. Request 2 is vexatious and BAET is not required to comply with it. BAET cannot rely on section 42(2) to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds information within the scope of requests 4 and 7. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Confirm or deny whether any information
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14; FOI 42
18 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to staff appointments and redundancies, along with plans for a new school building. The Commissioner’s decision is that Shaw Education Trust (the Trust) has correctly applied section 40(2) to part of the withheld information. The Commissioner also finds that the Trust has correctly applied section 43(2) to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
18 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made two information requests about various specified locations in Ramsey, Cambridgeshire. Cambridgeshire County Council (“the Council”) responded by either providing held information, requesting clarification, or confirming that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that in respect of request 1 and request 2 (parts 1, 3 and 4) the Council does not hold the requested information, or does not hold any further information described in the request which has not previously been disclosed to the complainant. In respect of request 2 (part 2) the Council has correctly sought clarification under regulation 9(2) by providing appropriate advice and assistance; as the complainant has not provided such clarification the exception provided by regulation 12(4)(c) is engaged. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(c); EIR 5(1); EIR 9
View Cambridgeshire County Council
17 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from North West Boroughs Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) about ethnic minority service users. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to comply with section 1(1) of the FOIA in failing to confirm or deny whether recorded information within the scope of the request was held. The Commissioner has also found that the Trust failed to comply with section 16(1) of the FOIA in failing to clarify with the requester the specific information sought. The Trust has since sought clarification from the requester and issued a fresh response. The complainant has not raised any specific issues with the Commissioner about the Trust’s fresh response. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0224 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View North West Boroughs Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
17 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
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 released a little information, indicated that it does not hold the majority of the information and said that other information is exempt from release under section 24(1) of the FOIA (national security) and 40(2)(third person personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: PHE breached section 1(1)(a) with regard to requests 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 3, 5 and 7 because it had indicated that it held no information within the scope of these requests. PHE breached section 1(1)(a) with regard to request 8 as it indicated that it held relevant information when it does not. PHE complied with section 1(1)(a) with regard to request 6. PHE breached section 1(1)(b) with regard to requests 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 3, 5 and 7 as it has not communicated to the complainant all the information that it has subsequently identified that it holds that falls wit
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 24
View UK Health Security Agency
17 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding situations where Jobcentre Managers would be invited to visit 10 Downing Street. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold the requested information. However, the Commissioner finds that DWP has breached section 10(1) of the Act as it did not comply with section 1(1)(a) of the Act within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
17 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to fire safety on the private finance initiative state used by Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the trust). The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust has incorrectly applied section 43(2) (commercial interests) to part of the withheld 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. The Commissioner further finds that the trust breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to provide its response within the designated timescale. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0233 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View THE NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
17 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Leafield Parish Council (the Council) in relation to his planning application. The Council disclosed some information relevant to the request but it withheld the remaining information under section 40(2) (third party personal data) of the FOIA.
Whilst it was not cited by the Council, the Commissioner has exercised her discretion and considered the exemption provided by section 40(1) (personal data of the requester) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s conclusion is that all of the information falling within the scope of the request is the complainant’s own personal data and is exempt under section 40(1). Therefore, the Council was not obliged to disclose the remaining requested information to the complainant under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
17 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to bullying and harassment investigations at the midwifery/women’s unit at Arrowe Park Hospital since 2008. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) has failed to provide a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to provide a respond to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA by either providing the requested information or issuing a valid refusal notice under section 17(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust