6 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to 3 definitive map modification applications. Staffordshire County Council withheld the requested information, citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR, on the grounds that the cost of compliance would be too great.The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire County Council has applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR appropriately. However, the Commissioner considers that Staffordshire County Council has breached regulations 5(2) (time for compliance) and 14(3) (refusal to disclose information) of the EIR.The Commissioner does not require Staffordshire County Council to take any steps following this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(3); EIR 5(2)
View Staffordshire County Council
6 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the outcome of arbitration between the council and a private company. The council applied section 32(2) (court records) and withheld the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 32(2) to some information held in respect of arbitration proceedings. She has also decided that whilst the council was not correct to apply section 32(2) to one document, section 32(1) was applicable to this information. Further to this she has decided that the council was not correct to consider that one document does not fall within the scope of the complainant's request, and so it has failed to comply with the requirements of section 1 of the Act in respect of this document. She has also noted that other, similar information may be held which the council has not identified or considered. She has also decided that the council failed to comply with section 10(1) in that it did not provide its response to the
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 32(1); FOI 32(2)
6 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for copies of any remaining documents in its archive about the coup in Iran in 1953. The FCO refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 23(5) (security bodies), 24(2) (national security) and 27(4) (international relations). The Commissioner has concluded that sections 23(5) and 24(2) are engaged. The FCO is therefore entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
5 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about staffing levels. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University of Oxford failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University 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 The University of Oxford
5 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information related to a particular planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Croydon (“the London Borough”) has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of the way it handled the request for information within 40 working days and also failed to respond to the request within 20 working days. It has therefore breached Regulations 11(4) and 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: reconsider how it handled the original request and inform the complainant of the outcome of that reconsideration in accordance with Regulation 11 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
5 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for copies of diplomatic telegrams and briefings sent by the FCO in Moscow regarding the football World Cup held in Russia in 2018. The FCO disclosed some information but sought to withhold further information on the basis of section 27(1)(a) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exemption and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
5 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the BBC relating to a payment made by the BBC to HMRC around April 2017 to cover the estimated liability of presenters who were currently not paid under PAYE for the tax year 2017/18. The BBC has not responded. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. She requires the BBC to issue a response to the complainant’s request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View BBC
4 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application. The Council handled the request under the FOIA and refused to disclose the information it held under the exemptions provided by section 21 – information accessible to the applicant by other means, section 36 - prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs, section 40(1) - information which is the applicant’s own personal data, section 40(2) – third party personal data and section 41 – information provided in confidence. When the Commissioner advised the Council that much of the requested information constituted environmental information the Council claimed that the information would be exempt under regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications, regulation 5(3) – personal data of the applicant, 13 - third party personal data, regulation, 12(5)(e) – commercially confidential information and regulation 12(5)(f) – interests of the provider of the information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigati
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 36; FOI 5
View South Holland District Council
4 Sep 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to complaints made about nurses and also all their places of work within Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust said that the requested information is exempt from release under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it is the personal data of the nurses named in the request. The Commissioner considers that the Trust incorrectly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the portion of the request concerning complaint data. The Commissioner has decided that under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA, the Trust is not obliged to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information as to do so would release the personal data of third parties. In regard to the portion of the request concerning places of work, the Trust reconsidered its position and released the information to the complainant outside of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 40(5) (1)
View Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
4 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the Health and Care Executive Minutes of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Sustainability and Transformation Programme (STP). The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) initially applied section 36 but during the Commissioner’s investigation it disclosed the requested information. As the information was not disclosed within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, the CCG breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB
4 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Continuing Healthcare. The West Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1). However, it did not provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with the CCG’s obligations under section 16 FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0210 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
3 Sep 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to several parcels of land close to his house and also for recordings of conversations held by the Parks department. The Commissioner’s decision is that Rother District Council (“the Council”) has provided everything that it holds in relation to both requests. However, it failed to recognise the complainant’s request for an internal review as such and therefore did not complete that internal review within 40 working days, thus breaching Regulation 11(4) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1)
View Rother District Council
3 Sep 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a report that had been carried out into a complaint. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Hounslow 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 London Borough of Hounslow
31 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various pieces of information about dogs on premises and leisure sites. Natural Resources Wales (‘NRW’). NRW provided some information and stated other information was not held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, NRW disclosed some additional information it located. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, NRW does not hold any additional information relevant to the request. However, in failing to comply fully with section 1 within 20 working days the Commissioner finds that NRW breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Natural Resources Wales
31 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information in relation to tree management by Birmingham City Council (the Council) for a specified period of time.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council provided the complainant with all of the recorded information falling within the scope of the request which it holds, and has therefore complied with its obligations under regulation 5(1) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Birmingham City Council
31 Aug 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the way that an earlier request for information had been handled. Ards and North Down Borough Council (‘the Council’) provided some information but withheld other information under regulation 12(4)(e) and 13. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged but the public interest in maintaining the exception is outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. However, the Commissioner has determined that the Council correctly applied regulation 13 to third party personal data. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information which has been withheld under regulation 12(4)(e).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 13
30 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of Bernays and Whitehouse Medical Partnership’s (the Partnership) data protection policy and ‘privacy clause’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Partnership provided the information it held at the time of the original request. In addition, the Partnership has also provided its updated policies to the complainant and the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
30 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Schools Company Trust about particular meeting minutes and visit notes. At the date of this notice, the Schools Company Trust has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Schools Company Trust 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 the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 5 June 2018.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
30 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested figures from NHS England about patient lists. At the date of this notice, NHS England has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: NHS England 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 the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 12 April 2018.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
30 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the character or play ‘Peter Pan’. The Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so GOSH 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Trust
30 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested YouTube viewing figures. 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
29 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of 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 substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Surrey Police
28 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence and emails about the resignation of the Deputy Crime Commissioner from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Warwickshire (the “OPCC”). The OPCC disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is properly engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
28 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about street lighting near his home. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham 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 Barking and Dagenham Council
28 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked Cheshire East Council to provide him with the name of the person or persons who made a complaint to the Council’s Planning Enforcement Department about a business operated by the complainant’s daughter and son-in-law. The Council has refused to supply the requested information in reliance on Regulations 13 and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire East Council is entitled to withhold the information requested by the complainant in reliance on Regulation 13 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Cheshire East Council
24 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Dartford Borough Council’s Warmer Streets Project. Dartford Borough Council (‘the Council’) provided some information and stated other information was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the request.
The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Dartford Borough Council
24 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of an audit report dated 2009 relating to forensic medical records. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) withheld the report in its entirety citing section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) was engaged but that the public interest favours releasing the requested information. She also found a procedural breach. The Commissioner requires the CPS to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation - disclose the withheld report to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36
View Crown Prosecution Service
24 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) information relating to her own property. The GPhC disclosed some information, but the complainant believed that further information was held. Whilst it was not cited by the GPhC, 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 so is exempt under section 40(1). Therefore, the GPhC was not obliged to disclose the requested information to the complainant under the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0204 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View General Pharmaceutical Council
24 Aug 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a contract for the construction of a cycle lane. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Enfield (“the London Borough of Enfield”) has provided all the information it holds within the scope of the request. However, it failed to issue an adequate refusal notice and has therefore breached Regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the London Borough to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5
View Enfield Council
24 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Ashurst Parish Council (the Council) information regarding documents in the SWAB Drop box facility. ‘SWAB’ is an acronym for Steyning, Wilston, Ashurst and Bramber parish councils, a cluster of four parish councils which worked together to produce the Neighbourhood Plan.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within the statutory time limit of 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA.
As the requested information has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
24 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Birmingham City Council (“the Council”) about the way in which ‘exceptional circumstances’ are determined for adults who have been awarded direct payments. 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 Birmingham City Council
23 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the awarding of a private finance initiative contract. Sheffield City Council (“the Council”) refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it was vexatious within the meaning of section 14 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 14 of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Sheffield City Council
23 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the execution of a private finance initiative contract. Sheffield City Council (“the Council”) refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it was vexatious within the meaning of section 14 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 14 of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Sheffield City Council
23 Aug 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the interruptions policy that was in force during a specific time period. The Commissioner’s decision is that St George’s, University of London (“the University”) has disclosed all the information it holds within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with its Section 1 duty. However, it did not issue a response within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the University to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View St George's, University of London
23 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on Cabinet minutes, telephone call records and meetings between United Kingdom (UK) Ministers and the United States of America (US) President at the time. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has appropriately withheld the requested information in reliance of the exemptions at FOIA sections 27(1)(a), (c) & (d), 27(2) and 35(1)(a) & (b). The Commissioner finds the Cabinet Office in breach of section 17(1) of the FOIA for relying in its submission to the Commissioner, on exemptions not relied on in its refusal notice to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
23 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)1 a copy of the index of the retained casework for land and properties belonging to a number of public authorities. The Commissioner’s view is that the complainant’s request was not sufficiently clear, therefore MHCLG was under an obligation under regulation 9 of the EIR to contact the complainant and seek clarification of the request. In failing to do so, MHCLG breached regulation 9 of the EIR. It is now required to remedy this breach by contacting the complainant and seeking clarification about his request.
The Commissioner requires MHCLG to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Write to the complainant seeking clarification of his request for “a copy of just the index of the retained casework”.
MHCLG must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making wr
Exemptions cited: EIR 9(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
23 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Environment Agency’s (EA) investigation into allegations made about a particular member of staff. The EA refused to disclose the information, citing regulations 13, 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 13
View Environment Agency
23 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the reversibility of the United Kingdom’s (‘UK’) Article 50 notification of the intention to withdraw from the European Union (‘EU’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has appropriately applied FOIA section 27(4)(a) (International relations) to refuse to confirm or deny holding information in the scope of the request. She considers that the public interest favours maintaining the exclusion. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
22 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about policies regarding children in care. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Hounslow (“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 London Borough of Hounslow
22 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the football match between Brighton and Hove Albion and Crystal Palace on 28 November 2017 (the “Match”). Sussex Police failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so Sussex Police breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Sussex Police
22 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the briefing notes presented to the Prime Minister prior to her decision to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
22 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to rail replacement buses and coaches. The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) responded by confirming that it did not hold the requested information. However that response was not provided promptly or within the twenty working day period specified in section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ORR has breached section 10 of the FOIA. However as the ORR has now provided a response the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Office of Rail and Road
22 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the correspondence from a named Professor. The University of Nottingham (the University) stated that the information was not held for the purposes of the FOIA under the provisions of section 3(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the University for its own purposes and therefore falls outside the definition of information held for the purposes of FOIA under section 3(2). She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View University of Nottingham
22 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the correspondence from two named Professors. Lancaster University (the University) stated that the information was not held for the purposes of the FOIA under the provisions of section 3(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the University for its own purposes and therefore falls outside the definition of information held for the purposes of FOIA under section 3(2). She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View The University of Lancaster
22 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the cost differences between the route options that HS2 considered for the Sheffield Spur; specifically route options for connecting to the Erewash Valley line at Toton. HS2 has withheld this information under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (confidentiality of commercial information). The Commissioner’s decision is that: HS2 is correct to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(5)(e) and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require HS2 to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
22 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about the process Sir Craig Oliver followed in seeking permission for his memoir Unleashing Demons: The Inside Story of Brexit. The Cabinet Office’s initial response to the complainant confirmed that it held some information falling within the scope of the request, albeit no actual information was disclosed. However, in its internal review response the Cabinet Office stated that it did not hold any information. The complainant argued that the Cabinet Office was likely to hold information falling within the scope his request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it became evident that there was a dispute between the Cabinet Office and the complainant as to how his request should be interpreted. The Commissioner has concluded that the complainant’s interpretation of the request, rather than the Cabinet Office’s interpretation, is the correct and objective one.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
22 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
he complainant has requested information regarding deportations. The Home Office disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under sections 31(1)(c) and (e) (law enforcement), 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has not applied sections 31(1)(c) and (e), 38 (1)(a) and (b) or 40(2) of the FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner also considers that the Home Office has breached sections 10(1) (time for compliance) and 17(1) and (3) (refusal of a request) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Disclose the withheld information in relation to question 3 of the request for information.
The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Co
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31; FOI 38; FOI 40
View Home Office
22 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the General Medical Council (‘the GMC’) information concerning Warwick Medical School. The GMC’s position is that it does not hold any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The GMC does not hold the information the complainant has requested and has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The GMC breached section 10(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the GMC to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View GMC
22 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on correspondence from two named Professors. The Cardiff University (the University) stated that the information was not held for the purposes of the FOIA under the provisions of section 3(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the University for its own purposes and therefore falls outside the definition of information held for the purposes of FOIA under section 3(2). She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Cardiff University
22 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the correspondence from two named Professors. Cardiff University (the University) stated that the information was not held for the purposes of the FOIA under the provisions of section 3(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the University for its own purposes and therefore falls outside the definition of information held for the purposes of FOIA under section 3(2). She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Cardiff University