21 Aug 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about communications and meetings between a named official and a number of other professionals. The Department for Education (DfE) provided some information but refused the majority of it under section 36(2) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs and 40(2) – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied sections 36(2) and 40(2) to withhold the requested information. However the original refusal notice it provided to complainant was invalid as it was issued before the DfE had obtained the qualified person’s opinion that section 36 was engaged. This resulted in a breach of section 17(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 40(2)
View Department for Education
21 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about schools for the academic year 2015-2016. Medway Council has acknowledged that it has not provided a substantive response to part 4) of the request under the terms of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to provide a substantive response to part 4) of the request, and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to part 4) of the request (which the Council has given the reference ‘MFOI001173’).
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Medway Council
21 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about correspondence and e-mails with two named Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS applied section 12(2) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) to the request, advising that to ascertain whether or not it holds any information would in itself exceed the cost limit threshold. The Commissioner decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
21 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of children leaving schools to be educated at home for the academic years of 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. Medway Council has disclosed conflicting responses to part of the request, and has not responded to the remainder. The Council has acknowledged that it has not provided a substantive response under the terms of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to provide a substantive response, and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a response, under the FOIA, to the request (which the Council has given the reference ‘MFOI001174’).
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Medway Council
21 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an extradition request he believed had possibly been made. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemptions provided by sections 23(5) (information relating to or supplied by security bodies), 27(4) (international relations) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 23(5) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the request which, if held, would be exempt by virtue of section 23(1) of the FOIA. She requires no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Home Office
21 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information related to a particular planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Croydon has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of the way it handled a 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: complete its review of the complainant’s request and inform him of the outcome of that review.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
21 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (“the NMC”) about a competence test. The test, which comprises a computer-based test (“CBT”) and an objective structured clinical examination (“OSCE”), is compulsory for applicants who have trained in nursing or midwifery outside the UK and wish to register with the NMC. The NMC disclosed some information to the complainant, but withheld information relating to the number of candidates, the pass rate and the number of complaints, broken down by test site, under section 43(2) of the FOIA – prejudicial to commercial interests – and under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA – prejudicial to the exercise of specific law enforcement functions. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exemption is engaged in this case and that the NMC withheld the information incorrectly. The Commissioner requires the NMC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information to the compl
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 43
View NMC
21 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the average cost of Idents. 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
21 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a range of topics including how the practice handles complaints and the performance of its triage system. Although the medical practice did respond to the request, the response was outside the statutory time limit of twenty working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that the medical practice has breached section 10 of the FOIA. However as the medical practice has now responded to the request the Commissioner does not require it to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
20 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a recently introduced policy requiring applicants for new and renewed shotgun certificates to provide medical information from their doctors. Lincolnshire Police provided a response to the complainant’s request, however, this was provided outside of the statutory time limit of 20 working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lincolnshire Police has breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) of the FOIA. As the requested information has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require Lincolnshire Police to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Lincolnshire Police
20 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on any legal opinion or advice relating to the reversal or withdrawal of the United Kingdom’s (‘UK’) notice of the intention to withdraw from the European Union (‘EU’). The Commissioner’s decision is that DExEU 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 Department for Exiting the European Union
20 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on any rules and/or guidance in the honours system regarding the conferment of honours. The public authority disclosed some of the information held within the scope of the request and withheld the remainder relying on the exemptions at sections 37(1)(b) and 31(1)(g) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was not entitled to rely on sections 37(1)(b) and 31(1)(g). This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0221 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
20 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on advice given by the London Borough of Camden’s (‘the Council’) Borough Solicitor to a named councillor. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has appropriately relied on the exemption at section 42(1) FOIA (Legal professional privilege) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Camden Council
20 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on legal advice held by the Department for Exiting the European Union (‘DExEU’) relating to the ability to revoke the UK’s intention to withdraw from the European Union (‘EU’). The Commissioner’s decision is that DExEU 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 the any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Department for Exiting the European Union
18 Aug 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to savings which the council said that it had made following the introduction of a new gas servicing and maintenance contract. The council provided an explanation of the savings it had made but the complainant argues that it has not supplied information which demonstrates how the savings stated by the council have been obtained from the introduction of the new contract. The council argues that it holds no further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided all of the information it holds falling within the scope of the request, and that it has therefore complied with the requirements of section 1(1)(b) of the Act. She has however decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) of the Act in that it did not provide a copy of all of the relevant information it holds to the complainant within 20 working days. The Commissioner
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Brighton and Hove City Council
17 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for briefing documents provided to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and his Chief of Staff on 11 and 12 September 2001. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but explained that it considered section 27 of FOIA to apply and it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test. To date, the Cabinet Office has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations in relation to the request. By failing to complete these deliberations within a reasonable timeframe the Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office has breached section 17(3) of FOIA in respect of its handling of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Cabinet Office
17 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the rental fee received for Leicester Square (the Square) during a specified time period. City of Westminster Council (the Council) handled the request under the Freedom of Information Act (the Act) and withheld the requested information under section 43 of the Act (prejudice to commercial interests). During the course of the investigation, the Council disclosed part of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental and the request should, therefore, have been handled under the EIR. The Commissioner considers that the Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged in with regard to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the remaining withheld 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
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Westminster Council
17 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Trade (DIT) seeking copies of email correspondence sent between named individuals. The DIT confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but explained that it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test. To date, the DIT has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations in relation to the request. By failing to complete these deliberations within a reasonable timeframe the Commissioner has concluded that the DIT has breached section 17(3) of FOIA in respect of its handling of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Department for International Trade
17 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to employment tribunals and the Trust’s use of consultants. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust failed to respond to either request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to both requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
17 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence and communications between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and The Queen and or Prince Philip from 1 May 1996 to 1 February 1998 in relation to The Royal Yacht Britannia. The public authority neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, relying on section 37(2) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 37(2)
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View HM Treasury
17 Aug 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about its discussions with Southampton University about the Broadlands Archive. The Cabinet Office initially took the view that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. However, following clarification from the Commissioner in relation to how the request should be interpreted it argued that compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner agrees with this assessment and therefore the Cabinet Office does not have to comply with the request by virtue of section 12(1) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office has a duty under section 16(1) of FOIA to provide the complainant with advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Cabinet Office
17 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of briefings to the Prime Minister pursuant to a meeting with CK Hutchinson Holdings and a copy of the minutes of the meeting itself. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request relying on the exemptions at sections 27(1)(a), 29(1)(a), 35(1)(a), 35(1)(d) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 29(1)(a).
Exemptions cited: FOI 29
View Cabinet Office
17 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information connected to the decision to prosecute the leader and deputy leader of British First, a far right political organisation, for offences contrary to section 1 of the Public Order Act 1936. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request relying on the exemptions at sections 30(1)(a) and 42(1) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 42(1) FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0177 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Attorney General's Office
16 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to a police investigation into a former Chair of the West Yorkshire Police Authority from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire (the “OPCC”). The OPCC would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any information, citing the exemption at section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
16 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information from Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust (GOSH), including information relating to end of life care and best interest court cases. The Commissioner’s decision is that GOSH 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 GOSH to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Trust
16 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a series of requests to the London Borough of Camden. The Council refused the requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the requests. No remedial steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); FOI 14
View Camden Council
16 Aug 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to asylum and immigration data in Northern Ireland. The Home Office confirmed it held relevant information but refused to provide it citing section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has provided a reasonable estimate of the costs associated with complying with the request and has therefore correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to the request. However, the Commissioner finds that the Home Office breached section 16(1) of the FOIA in that it did not provide reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant as to how her request could have been refined to bring it within the cost limit. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to take reasonable steps to advise and assist the complainant with a view to refining the request to bring it within the cost limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
16 Aug 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Justices’ Clerks’ Society. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the information. However, the Commissioner finds that the MoJ breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it failed to provide a response within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0139 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
15 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information from SOAS University of London (School of African & Oriental Studies) about scholarship awards. SOAS provided the information but redacted part of the contents of four specific emails. The Commissioner’s decision is that SOAS correctly made the redactions under section 40(2) of the FOIA because the information comprises the personal data of a third party. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
15 Aug 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked West Midlands Police (WMP) for information about its involvement in Sandwell Council’s decision to delay internal standards investigations while WMP conducted a related criminal investigation. WMP disclosed an ‘if asked’ press statement describing the nature of its interaction with Sandwell Council, and refused to disclose the remaining information it held, citing the exemptions at sections 30(1) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP was entitled to rely on section 30(1) of the FOIA to refuse to disclose the remaining information. However, she found a breach of section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA because WMP did not respond to the request within the statutory timescale for compliance. She also found a breach of section 1(1)(a) in that WMP failed to clarify that it did not hold some of the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 30
View West Midlands Police
15 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about cases that have been referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The Independent Office for Police Conduct did not comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Independent Office for Police Conduct has applied section 14(1) of the FOIA appropriately.
The Commissioner does not require the Independent Office for Police Conduct to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
15 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the procurement process for a leisure management contract. Ryedale District Council refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it would impose a grossly oppressive burden under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
14 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the erection of concrete bollards at a particular address. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire County Council (the Council) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Staffordshire County Council
14 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Wiston Estate. Horsham District Council (the council) provided some information but the complainant considered that the council held more. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council holds no further information falling within the scope of the request other that what it provided in its initial response. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Horsham District Council
14 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a financial dataset which informed a report produced by the public authority following a Care Homes Market Study. The public authority withheld the financial dataset on the basis of the exemption at section 43(2) FOIA.
The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Competition and Markets Authority
14 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence by named senior officials and Ministers regarding Carillion PLC between June and August 2017. The information held by the public authority within the scope of the request was withheld relying on the exemptions at sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(c) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 36(2)(c)
View Cabinet Office
14 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to recorded votes. Kempsey Parish Council (the council) provided a copy of its confidential notes, redacting the names of the councillors who voted under section 40(2) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigations the council advised the Commissioner that the redacted information was no longer held as they had been deleted. The Commissioner’s decision is that although likely to have been held at the time of the request, the names of the councillors who voted are no longer held by the council. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps but has highlighted some concerns and recommendations in the ‘Other matters’ section at the end of the decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0201 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
14 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by City of York Council (the council) about a referral it had made to the Local Government Association (the LGA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious request) and does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View York City Council
14 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a number of requests relating to an investigation into the procurement of certain external contracts by the City of York Council (the council). The Commissioner’s decision is that two of the three requests which have been considered within this Decision Notice are not vexatious and the council is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) in relation to these requests. With regards to a third request, the Commissioner has concluded that the council can no longer rely on its current reasoning for the application of section 14. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response in respect of the first two requests that does not rely on section 14(1). The council should then go on to issue a fresh response to the third request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View York City Council
14 Aug 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding properties which the organisation has earmarked for regeneration and/or disposal. He has also requested copies of contracts relating to a specific redevelopment project. The Commissioner’s decision is that Poplar Housing & Regeneration Community Association is a public authority for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations. As it has failed to respond to either request within 20 working days, it has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires Poplar HARCA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to both requests. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0199 appeal allowed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/1078/2019 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
14 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning the cost benefit analysis of advanced (energy) meters carried out by the former Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (now the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy). BEIS refused the original request in its entirely and a subsequent refined request in part under Section 12 (costs limit of the FOIA and/or Regulation 12(4)(b)(manifestly unreasonable).
The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS correctly refused both requests as manifestly unreasonable and that the public interest balance favours maintaining the exception in both cases. However, the Commissioner has found that BEIS breached Regulations 5(2) and 11(4) in their handling of the requests.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Department for Business and Trade
14 Aug 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complaints from parents and child safety issues in respect of a named school from Surrey County Council (the “Council”). Having initially advised that it held no information, the Council subsequently advised that some information had been located but that it was exempt from disclosure. It cited the exemptions at sections 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means), 40(1) (personal information – the complainant) and 40(2) (personal information – third party) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it disclosed a small amount of information but maintained reliance on section 40(2) for the remainder. The complainant complained about the time taken to deal with the request and the citing of section 40(2).
The Commissioner finds a breach of section 10(1) in respect of the time taken to respond to the request, and, by making a partial disclosure of information outside the time limit, she finds a further breach of se
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Surrey County Council
14 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of any guidance for the Prime Minister for the EU summit in October 2017 around proposed topics for small talk and general discussion with EU Leaders and Heads of Government of EU Member States. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request relying on the exemptions at sections 27(1)(a) and 35(1)(d) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 27(1)(a).
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
14 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested evidence submitted to an independent Inquiry which was set up following allegations against the public authority in relation to the New Bermondsey site in South London. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request relying on the exemptions at sections 21, 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c), 42 and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c)
View Lewisham Council
14 Aug 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a two part request for information concerning a named judge in relation to misconduct cases he had heard and any disciplinary action taken against him. Revising its initial position, following an internal review, the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’), advised that section 40(2), personal information applied to part (1) of the request. For part (2), the MOJ would ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (‘NCND’) holding any information citing section 40(5). In addition, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ cited section 44(1)(a), statutory prohibitions to disclosure, for part (2) of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information in part (1) of the request constitutes personal data and that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 40(2). For part (2) of the request, the Commissioner finds that the MOJ correctly cited section 40(5)(b)(i). In relying on section 44(1)(a) which it had not mentioned at or before the internal review, th
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
13 Aug 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the work cards covering the installation of the HUMS modification on two specific helicopter tail numbers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Defence does not hold the requested information in respect of one of the tail numbers. In respect of the other tail number, it has provided some information and was entitled to rely on Section 40(2) (Third Party Personal Data) of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”) to withhold the remainder. However the MoD breached Section 10 of the FOIA by failing to provide its response within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the MoD to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View Ministry of Defence
13 Aug 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Kent County Council’s (the council) disposal of land to Tesco in the Lowfield Street area of Dartford. The council applied regulation 12(5)(e), Regulation 12(4)(e) and Regulation 13(1) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied Regulation 13(1) to the information. She has also decided that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(e) to the information, and that the public interest rests in the exception being maintained for this information. She has also decided that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold information, however the public interest in the disclosure of some of this information outweighs that in the exception being maintained. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the information withheld by the council under Regulation 12(4)(e), other than
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13(1)
View Kent County Council
13 Aug 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’) refused the request on the grounds that it considered it to be manifestly unreasonable in accordance with Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, due to the significant burden imposed on the Council by the request in terms of cost grounds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has applied Regulation 12(4)(b) to the complainant’s request correctly. She finds that the weight of 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); EIR 9
View Sheffield City Council
13 Aug 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the process and procedures in place in 2015 for handling complaints and the training of staff which investigated a particular complaint at this time. The PHSO provided what recorded information it holds. The complainant disputes that he has been provided with all the recorded information the PHSO holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the PHSO does not hold any further recorded information to that already provided. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0197 part-allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
13 Aug 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding the ownership of numerous pieces of land. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bury Parish Council does not hold the requested information and has therefore discharged its duty under Regulation 5(1) of the Environmental Information Regulations. However it did not issue a Refusal Notice that complied with Regulation 14 and did not properly discharge its duty under Regulation 10 of the EIR and hence has breached both Regulations. The Commissioner does not require the Parish Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 10; EIR 14; EIR 5