26 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for an updated version of the ‘G-cloud’ dataset and details of its future publication schedule for this dataset. The Cabinet Office refused the request on the basis of section 22(1) of FOIA in its refusal notice and then subsequently relied on section 21(1) of FOIA in its internal review as an updated version of this dataset had now been published. The complainant disagreed with the application of both of these exemptions, complained about the time it took the Cabinet office to respond to the request, raised concerns about the accuracy of the dataset which had been published and complained that the Cabinet Office had failed, in response to his request, to provide information about the future publication schedule for this dataset. The Commissioner has concluded that sections 22(1) and 21(1) do not apply to the request and that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. H
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 22
View Cabinet Office
26 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted two requests to the Department for International Development (DFID) seeking a range of information about the St Helena airport project. DFID provided some of the information but sought to withhold the remainder of the information on the basis of the following regulations of the EIR: 12(5)(a) (international relations), 12(5)(b) (course of justice), 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) and regulation 12(3) (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt on the basis of either regulation 12(5)(a) or regulation 12(5)(b) and the public interest favours maintaining both exceptions.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Department for International Development
26 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants have requested various information including a copy of an investigation report into the conduct of a senior member of staff at the school at which their son had been a pupil and which they believe contained details of an allegation concerning their son against the senior teacher. The Governing Body provided some information but initially maintained that it did not hold a copy of the requested investigation report. Following the Commissioner’s investigation, the Governing Body confirmed that it held a copy of the report but refused to disclose it under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Governing Body has correctly relied on section 40(2) to withhold the information. The Commissioner also notes that the Governing Body breached section 17(1) and sections 17(7)(a) and (b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
26 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to a start-up grant given by Invest NI. Invest NI disclosed some information to the complainant, however it refused to disclose the remaining information (“the withheld information”), citing sections 40(2), 41, 43(1) and 43(2) as a basis for non-disclosure.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Invest NI has correctly applied the section 40(2) and 43(2) exemptions to the entirety of the withheld information. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
View Invest Northern Ireland
26 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted two requests to the Department for International Development (DFID) seeking information about the St Helena airport project. In response to the first request DFID confirmed that it held information but sought to refuse to disclose it on the basis of following regulations of the EIR: 12(5)(a) (international relations), 12(5)(b) (course of justice), 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) and regulation 12(3) (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt on the basis regulation 12(5)(b) and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. In response to the second request DFID explained that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of this request. On the balance of probabilities the Commissioner is satisfied that DFID does not hold any information falling within the scope of this request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0184 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Department for International Development
25 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Royal Borough of Greenwich (the Council) information relating to the closure of the public conveniences at Maryon Wilson Park. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information and is therefore entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR in this case. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
25 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the social care records relating to a now deceased person. Lancashire County Council refused to provide the requested information under the exemptions provided by sections 36(2)(c), 40(2), and 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the information under section 41(1). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Lancashire County Council
25 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to bee colony losses. The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so APHA 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 Animal and Plant Health Agency
25 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence for the terms of reference for Operation HELVETIC. The MOD identified two documents containing relevant information and disclosed a small portion of information. However, it argued that the remaining withheld information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(b) (defence) of FOIA. In addition, the MOD argued that some of the withheld information was also exempt from disclosure on the basis of either section 23(1) (security bodies) or section 24(1) (national security). The Commissioner has concluded that part of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(b) and that in all the circumstances of this case the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. However, in relation to the remainder of the withheld information the Commissioner is not persuaded that this is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(b). This decision notice is currently under appea
Exemptions cited: FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
24 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding population growth and forecast demand for secondary school places. Gloucestershire County Council did not respond within the statutory 20 working days prescribed by FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to communicate to the complainant the information it held to fulfil the request within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, Gloucestershire County Council breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. Gloucestershire County Council has now provided all the information to the complainant, therefore the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Gloucestershire County Council
24 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a three part request for information relating to an operation to fell trees and the public safety concerns associated with that operation. The Council’s position is that the information sought in the first and third parts of the request were not held. In respect of the second part of the request the Council claimed that complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit set out in section 12 of FOIA. The Commissioner advised the Council that the request should have been dealt with under the EIR, which the Council has not contested. The Council considers that under the EIR the request could be refused using the exceptions provided by regulation 12(4)(a) – information not held, and 12(4)(b) – manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulations 12(4)(a) and 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(b)
View Sheffield City Council
24 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Council Tax liability Orders. Bridgend County 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 Bridgend County Borough Council
24 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific statement made by Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service as part of a public consultation. The Service disclosed information. The complainant contested that further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Service has disclosed all held information. The Commissioner does not require the service to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0174 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service
23 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Information from the London Borough of Merton (Merton) about the number of Health and Safety (H&S) representatives at a particular location. The London Borough of Merton has stated that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Merton does not, on the balance of probabilities, hold information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0181 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Merton Council
23 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Ards & North Down Borough Council (“the Council”) in relation to a specified planning application. The Council disclosed some information, however it withheld the remainder, citing regulation 13(2)(a)(i) of the EIR as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 13(2)(a)(i) of the EIR to the withheld information. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
23 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an organisational restructuring exercise which resulted in the relocation of a number of staff. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive (‘NIHE’) provided some information and withheld other information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, NIHE does not hold any further recorded information. The Commissioner has also concluded that NIHE has correctly applied section 40(2) to the information it has withheld. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Northern Ireland Housing Executive
23 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an advertisement included in Potto Parish Council’s (“the Council”) minutes for September to November 2017. The complainant requested information regarding a vacancy for a new council member; whether it arose because of a resignation and, if so, the name of the person who wished to resign. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: the Council must provide the complainant with a response to part (iii) of his request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
23 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HMRC about Conditional Share Dividend Bonus arrangements. HMRC refused the request relying on section 44(1)(a). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, HMRC additionally sought to rely on section 31(1)(d). The Commissioner’s decision is that: section 31(1)(d) is not engaged, section 44(1)(a) is not engaged in relation to parts one and two of the request, and the information within the scope of part 3 of the request was correctly withheld. The decision in relation to part 3 of the request is set out in detail in a confidential annex which shall be made available to the public authority only. The commissioner requires HMRC to disclose the information requested at parts one and two of the request only. 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 sect
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 44
23 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a series of 17 requests, the complainant has requested information about various aspects of the Pubs Code Adjudicator’s performance. The Pubs Code Adjudicator (the PCA) released some information. It withheld information within the scope of requests 9, 10 and 15 under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third person personal data) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The PCA has also withheld information falling within the scope of requests 3 and 8 under section 41(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that: The PCA does not hold the information requested in requests 9 and 10. The information requested in requests 3, 8 and 15 does not engage section 41(1). Section 40(2) cannot be applied to request 15. The Commissioner requires the PCA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Release the information requested in requests 3, 8 and 15.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Pubs Code Adjudicator
23 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a covert operation in which he considered he was the target. North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner (North Yorkshire PCC) neither confirmed nor denied holding information within the scope of the request, citing section 40(5)(a) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Yorkshire PCC was correct to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request by virtue of section 40(5)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
23 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the incident log relating to a specific incident. The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Trust) refused the request on the basis of the section 31 exemption (Law Enforcement). During the Commissioner’s investigation the Trust also cited sections 40 (third party personal information) and 41 (information provided in confidence) to the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has demonstrated that section 31 is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions. However, the Commissioner also finds that the Trust breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it failed to provide a response within 20 working days. As a response has now been provided she requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31
View East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust
23 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a covert police operation in 2015. North Yorkshire Police neither confirmed nor denied holding information within the scope of the request citing section 40(5)(a) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Yorkshire Police was entitled to neither confirm nor deny if the requested information was held by virtue of section 40(5)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal (ref) EA/2019/0051 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View North Yorkshire Police
23 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the amount paid for work in an Appeal case to a named barrister by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO refused to provide this information on the basis of section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly engaged the section 43(2) exemption and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0148 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Information Commissioner
20 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested figures for offences relating to indecent images of children. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey Police has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires Surrey Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Surrey Police
20 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from HS2 a copy of the service agreement between it and a property management and estate service company. HS2 released relevant information it holds, withholding some under section 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests).The Commissioner considers that HS2 should have dealt with the request under the EIR as the information requested is environmental information under regulation 2(1). She has decided however that the information HS2 has withheld engages regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial or industrial information) and that the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
20 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Portsmouth City Council for correspondence received by Solent Local Enterprise Partnership which relates to an application by the Fox and Hounds Co-operative for a Bridging the Gap Grant. The Council has refused to disclose the correspondence it holds on the grounds that it is subject to a duty of confidence owed to the owners of the Fox and Hounds/ the Council therefore applied the exemption to disclosure provided by section 41(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Portsmouth City Council has correctly applied section 41(1) of the FOIA to the information it has withheld from the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Portsmouth City Council
20 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Brighton and Hove City Council (the Council) for information it held about the due diligence it had undertaken in relation to the awarding of a heating services contract. The Council sought to withhold the requested information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exemption and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, the Council breached section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 43
View Brighton and Hove City Council
20 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested figures for offences relating to indecent images of children. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the MPS to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
18 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a Public Rights of Way investigation. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council (‘the Council’) provided some information but withheld other information under section 31 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been handled under the EIR. The Commissioner has found that some of the withheld information constitutes the complainant’s own personal data and therefore exempt under regulation 5(3) of the EIR, the Council correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) to other information and the Council correctly withheld some information under regulation 13 whilst having misapplied it to other information. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the documents withheld under regulation 13, with the exception of any third party personal data relating to members of the public or junior officials contained within them.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 13; EIR 5
18 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a particular police investigation. South Wales Police refused to confirm nor deny holding any information citing the exemptions at sections 30(3) and 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Wales Police has applied section 40(5) of the FOIA appropriately to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View South Wales Police
18 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to reports of adverse incidents submitted to the Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) from 1 April 2003 to 30 March 2017. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHRA has incorrectly applied section 14(1) to the request. The Commissioner requires MHRA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response without reliance on section 14(1). 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
18 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a proposed development. South Gloucestershire Council disclosed some information and withheld the reminder, citing regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Gloucestershire Council has cited regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR appropriately. However, she considers that SGC has breached regulations 5(2) (time for compliance) and 14(3) (refusal to disclose information) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require South Gloucestershire Council to take any steps following this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0150 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 14(3); EIR 5(2)
View South Gloucestershire Council
18 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a review undertaken into Sport Wales. The Welsh Government provided a copy of the review in question and confirmed that some information had been withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Welsh Government also sought to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c) in respect of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2). She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Welsh Government
17 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to complaints made against One Medical Group. NHS England refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England was correct to apply section 12 FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner also considers that NHS England provided the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View NHS England
17 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information it held about the death of her husband overseas. The FCO provided the complainant with some information under FOIA, and also made a number of additional disclosures to her under the Data Protection Act 1998. Under FOIA, the FCO sought to withhold further information on the basis of the exemption contained at section 40(2) (third party personal data) of FOIA. The complainant questioned the FCO’s reliance on this exemption and also argued that the FCO was likely to withhold further information falling within the scope of her request. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information which the FCO has withheld in response to this request is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The only exception to this is a small portion of withheld information which the Commissioner considers to be the complainant’s own personal data and thus is instead exempt from disclosure under
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
17 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a local transport infrastructure planning scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead does not hold any further information to that already provided and therefore has not breached regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner notes that the Council provided its response outside of the statutory twenty working days and as such has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Windsor and Maidenhead Council
17 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the emails/documents which detail Deloitte’s calculation which come up with the figure of 6700 (relating to the 7 day NHS reforms). NHS England refused to provide some of the information requested under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii),section 36(2)(c) FOIA. Some information was provided but redactions were made to it under section 40(2) FOIA. The complainant does not consider that NHS England located all information falling within the scope of the request and therefore considers further information is held. The complainant did not however dispute the redactions made under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA to the withheld information and that no further information is held under section 1(1)(a) FOIA other than that which has already been provided. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0144 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36
View NHS England
17 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding restrictions put in place during an event in Manchester. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, Manchester City Council has provided all the information it holds in scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require Manchester City Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Manchester City Council
17 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the DFC regarding registered landlords. The DFC 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 the DFC has breached section 10(1) of FOIA. As the requested information has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the DFC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Communities (Northern Ireland)
16 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the number of complaints and judicial reviews the LGSCO has handled as an organisation, at the Coventry office and by or relating to one member of staff. The LGSCO provided the information it holds and confirmed that it considers the information relating to the named member of staff is exempt from disclosure under section 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 40 of the FOIA applies to the withheld information and that all other recorded information that is held falling within the scope of this request has been provided to the complainant. However, she has recorded a breach of section 1 and 10 of the FOIA, as the LGSCO failed to provide information to which the complainant was entitled to receive within 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
16 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) about redundancy packages. The Trust has released some information and withheld some under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considers this information to be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Trust correctly applied section 40(2) to the information it withheld. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
13 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested two pension valuation consultations. The University of Nottingham (the University) refused the request under section 36(2)(b)(ii) – prejudice to the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 36(2)(b)(ii) is engaged but the public interest only favours maintaining the exemption for one part of the request - the copy of the University’s response to the 2017 UUK USS valuation consultation. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the copy of the University’s response to the 2014 UUK USS valuation consultation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View University of Nottingham
13 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a funding application made to the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) including the application form, subsequent correspondence and decision letter. The RPA withheld this information under the exception for commercial confidentiality – regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the RPA has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under regulation 12(5)(e). This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Rural Payments Agency
13 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of councillors and members of the corporate management team who had been in arrears on their council tax. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thanet District Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner requires the Council 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 Thanet District Council
12 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and Toyota regarding the company’s investment in its Burnaston car plant in Derbyshire, which was announced on 16 March 2017. BEIS originally withheld the three documents within scope of the request under sections 35 (formulation or development of government policy), 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43(2)(prejudice to commercial interests) of the FOIA and latterly applied section 29(1)(a)(prejudice to the economic interests of the United Kingdom or of any part of the United Kingdom). BEIS provided the complainant with one of the three documents, (a redacted copy of an email exchange) at internal review and advised the Commissioner during her investigation that they did not consider that section 35 applied to the two remaining withheld documents. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS correctly withheld the remaining two documents under section 43(
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Business and Trade
12 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a report on a previous data breach. The Commissioner’s decision is that Newcastle City Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner requires the Council 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 Newcastle City Council
12 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in certain PREM files and a CAB file which has not been transferred to the National Archive. The Cabinet Office refused to provide this and cited sections 23 (security services), 37 (correspondence with the Sovereign), 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data) and 41 (information provided in confidence). It upheld this at internal review although during the Commissioner’s investigation, it withdrew reliance on section 41. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on sections 23, 37(1)(a) and 40(2) as a basis for withholding the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 37; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
12 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Office of Communications (OFCOM) about transparency standards. The Commissioner’s decision is that OFCOM complied with the procedural sections of the FOIA and provided the complainant with all of the recorded information which it held that was relevant to his request. The Commissioner does not require OFCOM to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ofcom
12 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked the former Department for Communities and Local Government to provide him with the 54 responses made in respect of the government’s consultation on changes to Building Regulations 2010. Now called the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government [“the MHCLG”), the Department disclosed to the complainant 14 or the 54 responses it received as part of that consultation. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MHCLG has disclosed to the complainant all of the responses it holds in respect of the 2010 Building Regulations consultation and in doing so, the Department has complied with section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also decided that the MHCLG has breached section 10 of the FOIA by exceeding the twenty day compliance period required by the Act.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
12 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Queen Mary University London’s (QMUL) role as an employer with regard to harassment of researchers. The Commissioner’s decision is that QMUL has correctly applied section 14(1) (vexatious request) to the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Queen Mary University of London