12 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the impact of the UK leaving the European Union (EU) on food prices. The requested information was withheld under the exemptions provided by sections 35 – formulation and development of government policy, section 27 – international relations and section 29 – prejudice to the economy. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra is entitled to rely on section 35 to withhold all the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
11 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the contracts between Northamptonshire County Council, Vinci UK and East Midlands Learning Consortium (EMLC) relating to the construction of Northampton International Academy, and the status of contractors on site. The Council refused to supply the contracts, citing the exemption under section 43(2) of the FOIA – commercial interests, but provided information about contractor status (i.e. demolition and build). The complainant subsequently asked for a redacted copy of the contract, which the Council then withheld citing section 12 of the FOIA on the basis that responding to the request would exceed the appropriate costs limit. Following instruction from the Commissioner, the Council reconsidered its response to the request under the EIR. It supplied a redacted copy of the contract to the complainant, but withheld some information under regulation 12(5)(e) – confidentiality of commercial or industrial information, and 12(3) – third party p
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13; EIR 14; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Northamptonshire County Council
11 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the management of fire safety. Richmond Housing Partnership (RHP) refused to comply with the request as it was not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and it disputed that the information was environmental in nature. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information comprises environmental information as set out in regulation 2(1)of the EIR but that RHP is not a public authority as defined in regulation 2(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require RHP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1); EIR 2(2)
11 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) supporting evidence for the comments that a Councillor made in a meeting held on 18 December 2017. The Council provided the information that it holds in the form of two web links from the Council’s web-page. However the complainant considered that further information must be held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request and therefore has complied with its duties under section 1(1) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wirral Council
10 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for information it held concerning the transfer of the Stone of Scone to Scotland in 1996. The Cabinet Office responded to the request - outside of the 20 working days required by FOIA - and withheld all of the information falling within the scope. Some 18 months after the request, and during the Commissioner’s investigation of this complaint, the Cabinet Office disclosed the majority of the requested information. In withholding the remainder of the information the Cabinet Office sought to rely on the exemptions contained at the following sections of FOIA: 27(1)(a) (international relations), 37(1)(a) (communications with the Sovereign), 40(2) (personal data), and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The complainant does not dispute the application of these exemptions but is dissatisfied with the Cabinet Office’s delays in handling his request. The Commissioner has concluded that such delays resulted in the Cabinet Office
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View Cabinet Office
10 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating WBCCG’s complaints procedures in 2014. WBCCG responded, disclosing the recorded information it holds. The complainant disputes that all recorded information held has been provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, WBCCG does not hold any further recorded information to that already disclosed. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0160 part-allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17
View Wigan Borough Clinical Commissioning Group
10 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to contract research staff. The University of Southampton (the University) failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the University 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 University of Southampton
10 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about maternal deaths since 2013 and the serious incident reports. Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) provided the statistical information for Q1 of the request but refused to provide the serious incident reports for Q2 of the request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 41 of the FOIA (information provided in confidence) to withhold the remaining information at Q2. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Homerton Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
10 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the ‘Trojan Horse’ case. The DfE disclosed the number of teachers and governors that have faced conduct panel hearings but refused to disclose the legal costs incurred under section 36(2)(c) and 43 of the FOIA. It also refused to disclose details of any claims for compensation, damages and losses under section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA is engaged, but the public interest in favour of maintaining this exemption is outweighed by the public interest in favour of disclosure. With regards to section 43 of the FOIA, the Commissioner’s decision is that this exemption is not engaged.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36(2)(c); FOI 43
View Department for Education
10 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Complainant has requested from the University of Bristol (the University) the annual salaries of all senior managers by reference to their job titles and departments in £5,000 salary bands. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has incorrectly applied section 40(2) (personal information) and 43(commercial interests) of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner also found that the University breached section 10(1) of the FOIA due to the time it took to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0162 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 43
View The University of Bristol
10 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about patient level data on medical care. The University of Bristol (the University) withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied this exemption and does not require the University to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0142 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The University of Bristol
10 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the cost calculations used by QMUL in relation to its application of section 12 FOIA to a previous request she had made. QMUL provided the complainant with some information but confirmed that no further information was held under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that no further information is held by QMUL other than that which has been provided to the complainant under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Queen Mary University of London
10 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the purchase and use of Covert Communications Data Capture (“CCDC”) from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemptions at sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA for the request in its entirety.
In respect of parts (1) and (3) of the request the Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5) and 24(2) were cited correctly so the MPS was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held; this is also her position in respect of some of part (4) of the request. For part (2) of the request and the ‘legislation’ and ‘codes of practice’ elements of part (4) of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions were applied incorrectly. The MPS is required to confirm or deny
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
10 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the purchase and use of Covert Communications Data Capture (“CCDC”) from the Avon and Somerset Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (the “OPCC”). The OPCC would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemptions at sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5) and 24(2) were cited correctly so the OPCC was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0165 disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
10 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the purchase and use of Covert Communications Data Capture (“CCDC”) from Kent Police (“KP”). KP would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemptions at sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA for the request in its entirety.
In respect of parts (1) and (3) of the request the Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5) and 24(2) were cited correctly so KP was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held; this is also her position in respect of some of part (4) of the request. For part (2) of the request and the ‘legislation’ and ‘codes of practice’ elements of part (4) of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions were applied incorrectly. The KP is required to confirm or deny whether this information is held and
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Kent Police
10 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the purchase and use of Covert Communications Data Capture (“CCDC”) from South Yorkshire Police (“SYP”). SYP would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemptions at sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA for the request in its entirety.
In respect of parts (1) and (3) of the request the Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5) and 24(2) were cited correctly so SYP was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held; this is also her position in respect of some of part (4) of the request. For part (2) of the request and the ‘legislation’ and ‘codes of practice’ elements of part (4) of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions were applied incorrectly. SYP is required to confirm or deny whether this information
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View South Yorkshire Police
10 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the purchase and use of Covert Communications Data Capture (“CCDC”) from the Staffordshire Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (the “OPCC”). The OPCC would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemptions at sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA for the request in its entirety.
In respect of parts (1) and some of part (3) of the request the Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5) and 24(2) were cited correctly so the OPCC was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. For the ‘legislation’ element of part (2) of the request and the ‘legislation’ and ‘codes of practice’ elements of part (3) of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions were applied incorrectly. The OPCC is required to confirm or de
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
10 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the purchase and use of Covert Communications Data Capture (“CCDC”) from the Warwickshire Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (the “OPCC”). In respect of parts (1) to (3) of the request, the OPCC confirmed holding some information but advised that it was exempt from disclosure under sections 24(1) (national security) and 31(1) (law enforcement). In respect of part (4) of the request it would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any information citing section 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters); it also cited section 21(1) (information accessible by other means) which it later retracted. During the Commissioner’s investigation the OPPC withdrew reliance on section 23(5), saying that it should have advised the complainant that part (4) of the request related to a different public authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in respect of parts (1) to (3) of the request, the O
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
10 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the purchase and use of Covert Communications Data Capture (“CCDC”) from the West Mercia Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (the “OPCC”). In respect of parts (1) to (3) of the request, the OPCC confirmed holding some information but advised that it was exempt from disclosure under sections 24(1) (national security) and 31(1) (law enforcement). In respect of part (4) of the request it would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any further information citing section 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters); it also referred to section 21(1) (information accessible by other means) which it later clarified it did not intend to rely on. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in respect of parts (1) to (3) of the request, the OPCC was entitled to rely on section 24(1). She also finds that part (4) of the request was addressed to a different public authority and the OPPC should have advise
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
10 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the purchase and use of Covert Communications Data Capture (“CCDC”) from the West Midlands Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (the “OPCC”). The OPCC would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemptions at sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA for the request in its entirety.
In respect of part (1) and some of part (2) of the request the Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5) and 24(2) were cited correctly so the OPCC was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. However, for the ‘legislation’ and ‘codes of practice’ elements of part (2) of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions were applied incorrectly. The OPCC is required to confirm or deny whether this information is held and either di
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
10 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the purchase and use of Covert Communications Data Capture (“CCDC”) from Avon and Somerset Constabulary (“A&S”). A&S would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) whether it holds the requested information, citing the exemptions at sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA for the request in its entirety. In respect of parts (1) and (3) of the request the Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5) and 24(2) were cited correctly so A&S was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held; this is also her position in respect of some of part (4) of the request. For part (2) of the request and the ‘legislation’ and ‘codes of practice’ elements of part (4) of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions were applied incorrectly. A&S is required to confirm or deny wheth
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Avon and Somerset Police
9 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation into the source of the figure for excess deaths as the result of patients being admitted to hospitals at weekends used by the Secretary of Health (now Secretary for Health and Social Care) in a speech on 16 July 2015. NHS England refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has correctly applied section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View NHS England
9 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the proposed ‘seven day service’ in the NHS. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England (NHSE) has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0154 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View NHS England
9 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of compensation and legal costs associated with the child grooming scandal in Rotherham. South Yorkshire Police (‘SYP’) provided some of the requested information but ultimately refused to provide the remainder citing sections 38(1), health and safety, 40(2), personal information, and 43(2), commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP is entitled to rely on section 38(1) in relation to both the overall total compensation paid and the individual compensation payments, for the reasons set out in this notice. As she finds section 38(1) to be engaged, she has not considered SYP’s reliance on the other exemptions. In relying on sections 38(1) and 43(2) after completing its internal review, SYP has breached section 17(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 38
View South Yorkshire Police
9 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details about the Ministry of Defence’s criteria for designating force deployments as “combat” or “non-combat.” The Commissioner’s decision is that Ministry of Defence (“the MoD”) 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 MoD 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 Ministry of Defence
6 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about fines issued to private prison operators and providers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) 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 MOJ to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
6 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information in relation to property searches on 26 specified addresses. The Commissioner’s decision is that Havant Borough Council failed to respond to any of the requests within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. As all the requests have now been responded to, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Havant Borough Council
5 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint made by [named individual] to the ICO. The ICO refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 40(5) FOIA is applicable in this case and therefore the ICO can neither confirm nor deny if the information requested is held as to do so would be a disclosure of personal data. She requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0155 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Information Commissioner
4 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the DfC regarding logos for branded stationery. 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)
4 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of Westminster City Council’s Client Affairs policies. The Commissioner’s decision is that Westminster 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 response which complies with Section 1 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Westminster Council
4 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the amounts paid to the author of a report from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS initially refused to provide this information, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA, however, it was later provided to the complainant during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The MPS did confirm that the information was held, but outside of the 20 working day time limit, thereby breaching section 10(1) of the FOIA. In failing to disclose the requested information within the time limit the Commissioner finds a further breach of section 10. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
3 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to financial and governance issues at Wakefield City Academies Trust (WCAT). The DfE responded to the request by refusing to disclose the requested information under sections 36, 40 and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is entitled to rely on section 36 of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
3 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information around a planning dispute. The Commissioner’s decision is that Luton Borough Council has disclosed all the information it holds and has therefore complied with its duty under Regulation 5(1), however in failing to issue a response within 20 working days, it breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. It also failed to either transfer the request to, or inform the complainant of the name and address of a public authority which it believed held (or might have held) the information. It therefore also breached Regulation 10(1). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 10(1); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Luton Borough Council
3 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
UK Research and Innovation has explained to the Commissioner that from 1 April 2018 the seven UK Research Councils (which include the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council - EPSRC), Innovate UK and Research England became part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), a non-departmental public body funded by a grant-in-aid from the UK Government. UKRI is now the legal entity for complying with UK Information Access Regimes. UKRI provided the submission to the Commissioner, which retained reference to EPSRC for clarity. The Commissioner notes the new structure but also refers to EPSRC throughout this decision notice; again, for clarity. The complainant requested from the EPSRC information about a particular grant. EPSRC directed the complainant to a website where some relevant information is published. It released other information with some redacted under section 36(2)(b) (inhibition to provision of advice and exchange of views), 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of pub
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36; FOI 41; FOI 43
View UK Research and Innovation
3 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Brampton Manor Trust (the Trust) various information regarding members of staff that were employed by Langdon School prior to it joining the Trust and also staff employed thereafter. The Commissioner has determined that the Trust was correct to apply section 12 of the FOIA to the request and she therefore does not require the Trust to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View BRAMPTON MANOR TRUST
3 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the construction of new homes in Norris Green. The Commissioner’s decision is that Liverpool City Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Liverpool City Council
3 Jul 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an incident which had occurred at an educational establishment. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent County Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. As a response has now been issued, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Kent County Council
3 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (the Department) relating to any complaints it may have made to the BBC over a five month period relating to any of its radio, TV or on-line production. The Department responded to the request, citing section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department is entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA in this case. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department of Health and Social Care
3 Jul 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested to see the information in the appendices from a Cost Plan Review for a planning application submitted to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. The Council refused to provide this on the basis of the exceptions at regulation 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly engaged the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) and that the public interest in this case favours maintaining the exception. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
2 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an image of protestors against tree felling that appeared in The Star newspaper. Sheffield City Council (the Council) stated that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council stated correctly that it did not hold information falling within the scope of the majority of the request and so complied with section 1(1)(a) in relation to those elements. However, in relation to one part of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that this should have been dealt with separately and that in failing to do so the Council breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Council is now required to provide a separate response to that part of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Sheffield City Council
2 Jul 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council (the Council) regarding the amount that has been paid by a specified legal entity to the Council, in major works costs, service charges and ground rent. In addition, the complainant requested the reasons behind refusal of a previous information request. The Council provided the information in relation to the first part of the request, and stated that it does not hold further information in relation to the second part of the request. However the complainant considers that further information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request and therefore has complied with its duties under section 1(1) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner found that the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA due to the time it took to respond to the request.
The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Brighton and Hove City Council
29 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various items of information in respect of the TrawsCymru bus services in the Aberystwyth area. The Welsh Government informed the complainant that it does not hold the information and during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation provided him with some contextual background in respect of a number of items of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Welsh Government
28 Jun 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked West Sussex County Council to provide him with a copy of certain meeting notes in respect of a safeguarding adults review concerning his brother. Having first refused the complainant’s request in reliance on section 31 of the FOIA, the Council now relies on section 3(2) of the FOIA, on the grounds that it doesn’t hold the requested information, and on section 14(1) on the grounds that the request is vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Sussex County Council holds the information requested by the complainant for its own purposes being a lead member of the Safeguarding Adults Board. The Council is therefore not entitled to rely on section 3(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has considered the Council’s application of section 14(1) of the FOIA. She has decided that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1) to the complainant’s request on the grounds that it is vexatious. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0143 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 3
View West Sussex County Council
28 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about two specific planning applications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Croydon failed to respond to either request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive responses, under the EIR, to both requests.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
28 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report relating to the investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by a civil servant from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”); to date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. She requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
28 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information relating to the October 2017 BCC equal pay audit. The BBC has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that the BBC breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. 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 BBC
28 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has submitted two requests for recorded information to Bournemouth Borough Council. Both of the complainant’s requests relate to a particular measurement which was used by the Local planning Authority to determine two planning applications: 7-2009-23997 and 7-2016-23997-B. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bournemouth Borough Council has complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR by informing the complainant that the information he seeks is not held by the Council.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Bournemouth Borough Council
28 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the pattern and value of land ownership for individuals in England and Wales. Her Majesty’s Land Registry (HMLR) has refused to comply with the request relying on section 14 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMLR is entitled to rely on section 14. She does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View HM Land Registry
28 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the policy used to in relation to his claim. The Home Office provided the document it held but redacted information it considered fell under section 31(1)(e) of the FOIA – the operation of immigration controls. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(e) of the FOIA is not engaged to the redacted information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with a copy of the redacted information. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
28 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about an internal complaint regarding an investigation into a murder. West Midlands Police refused to either confirm or deny holding information within the scope of the request, citing section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Midlands Police 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
View West Midlands Police