13 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Stroud Subscription Rooms. Stroud District Council (the Council) provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder citing sections 22 (information intended for future publication), 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the Council’s application of section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and (c) to the information within the scope of part (7) of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Stroud District Council
13 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence to and from a specific employee of the Cabinet Office which mentions the British Indian Ocean Territory and/or the Chagos Archipelago. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”). The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
13 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to some Call for Site questionnaires and how and when these were assessed into stage 2 of the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). The authority responded to the requests, providing responses to many of the questions and confirming where it considered the requested information is not held. The complainant asked the Commissioner to consider two questions from the requests and to determine whether the requested information is held and if so whether it has been provided by the authority, thereby meeting its obligations under the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority does hold some recorded information falling within the scope of the two questions. Towards the end of her investigation this information was disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner considers the authority did hold further recorded information at the time of the requests, which could have been provided at that time had the questions been interpret
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View New Forest National Park Authority
13 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy concerning the Star Chamber sessions referenced in the Government’s Regulatory Futures Review. The Department originally withheld all the information held within scope of the complainant’s request under Section 35(1)(a)(formulation or development of government policy). During the Commissioner’s investigation the Department provided the complainant with some of the information requested, with redactions for information exempt under Section 35(1)(a) and Sections 29(1)(a)(economic interests of the United Kingdom or of any part of the United Kingdom) 35(1)(b)(Ministerial communications) and 40(2)(third party personal data), which the Department applied latterly to some of the information held. The Commissioner has found that all the residual withheld information is exempt from disclosure under Section 35(1)(a) and requires no steps to be taken as a result of this notice. Informat
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Business and Trade
13 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the inaugural meeting of the Advisory Military Sub Committee (‘the AMSC’) held on 5 December 2012. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Defence (‘the MoD’) has correctly engaged the exemption at section 35(1)(a) but she considers that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to ensure compliance with the legislation. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Defence
13 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation of a Whatsapp group. The BBC failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the BBC 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 BBC
13 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to speeding offence prosecutions. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) refused to comply with the request on the basis that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit in costs set by section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS correctly applied section 12(1) and found that there is no breach of section 16(1) (duty to provide advice and assistance) of the FOIA. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Crown Prosecution Service
12 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant has requested information relating to a contract held between Mid Suffolk District Council and SLM Ltd for the management of Mid Suffolk Leisure Centre. The Council responded, applying section 14(1) of the FOIA to the complainant’s requests and stating the he had already been supplied with a copy of the contract and relevant committee report. The Commissioner’s decision is that Mid Suffolk Leisure Centre has correctly applied section 14(1) to the complainant’s requests. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Mid Suffolk District Council
12 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested particular communications dealing with the establishment of a new team and containing the word SIPPs. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) refused the request under sections 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs and section 40(2) - third party personal information. The Commissioner is satisfied that sections 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c) and 40(2) are engaged. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
12 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about particular communications and documents on a new team. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that FOS is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) and is satisfied that FOS met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
12 Jun 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to section 165 - 167 of the Equality Act. The council provided its response but the complainant did not consider it was clear as to whether the list that the council had provided to him complied with section 167 of the Equality Act. He also asked the Commissioner to determine whether the council has complied with section 16 of the FOIA – advice and assistance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council’s response did not comply with section 1 of the FOIA but that it was not required to provide any further advice and assistance under section 16 of the FOIA in this case. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
11 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the seizure and processing of digital devices. Sussex Police disclosed some information and said that it did not hold information about instances in which the results of individual forensic examinations were used to prosecute device owners. The complainant challenged this assertion. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Sussex Police does hold the requested information. She also found that by failing to respond to the request within the statutory 20 working day timescale, Sussex Police breached section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to issue a fresh response to the request to know, for the periods specified by the complainant, in how many instances the results of forensic examinations were used to prosecute the device owner. The fresh response should not rely on a claim that the requested information is not held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Sussex Police
11 Jun 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Kirklees Council which concerns remarks made by a councillor at a public meeting, where the Councillor is alleged to have said that the complainant had cost the Council £38,000. The Council corrected the amount referred to by the complainant in his request and it provided him with a schedule of its calculation of how a figure of £11,000 was arrived at. The Council made some redactions from the schedule disclosed to the complainant by virtue of its application of section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kirklees Council has correctly applied the provisions of section 40(2) to information it withheld from the complainant. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council has breached section 10 of the FOIA for failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the required twenty working day compliance period.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
11 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Warwickshire County Council’s Forestry Services Contracting audit and to information relating to his removal from the Council’s Out of Hours Arboricultural Contractor List. The Commissioner’s decision is that Warwickshire County Council has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) to the audit report it has withheld from the complainant in respect of item (i) of his request. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council has complied with parts (ii) and (iii) of the complainant’s request by informing the complainant that it holds no recorded information which meets the terms of those parts of his request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36
View Warwickshire County Council
11 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the Parish Council’s plan of action in response to the recommendations of its auditors. The Commissioner’s decision is that Potto Parish Council (“the Parish Council”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”). She also considers that the Parish Council’s response did not amount to discharging its duty under Section 1(1)(b) and therefore breached Section 1 of the FOIA. As the complainant now has access to the information he originally sought, the Commissioner considers that ordering further steps would serve no useful purpose.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
11 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office regarding details of reported incidents of hate crime. The Home Office refused to provide the information, citing the exemption at section 22 of the FOIA – information intended for future publication. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Home Office
8 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies related to the processing of a previous information request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (“the FCO”) has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time period and has therefore breached Section 17(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”). The Commissioner requires the FCO to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
8 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of assessments that the Cabinet Office has created of UK journalists. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
8 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of an audit reported to the Public Sector Network. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wellingborough Borough Council (“the Council”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. As a response has now been provided the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
8 Jun 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the development of a draft Neighbourhood District Plan (NDP) by Steyning, Wiston, Ashurst and Bramber Parish Councils (SWAB), a cluster of four parish councils which worked together to produce the plan. The cluster eventually broke up with the NDP partially completed. The complainant asked the council for information relating to the development of the SWAB Plan. The council argues that it holds no further information beyond that which it has already disclosed or which is publicly available from the SWAB website. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities the council was correct to state that no further information is held. She has however decided that the council did not comply with Regulation 5(2) in that it did not provide a copy of the SWAB NDP to the complainant within 20 working days, for the reasons outlined later within this decision notice. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any ste
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
7 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested unredacted information from a contract between Barnet Council and Capita. The Council provided the majority of the information but continued to withhold day rates paid to Capita on the basis of section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the exemption is engaged. The Commissioner finds that section 43(2) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take disclose the days rates as set out in Appendix 9 of Schedule 4 Payment Mechanism.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Barnet Council
7 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning the title to allotments and a purported transfer of land. Burnham on Crouch Town Council stated in the initial response and its review response that no information was held within the scope of the request. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the Council reviewed the matter and found minutes that were relevant to the request which it disclosed to the complainant. In failing to disclose at the time of the request information that it did hold, Burnham on Crouch Town Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. As the information has now been disclosed the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
7 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Horsham District Council (HDC) relating to the production of a Neighbourhood Development Plan by a cluster of public authorities (SWAB). HDC disclosed dome information but said that it does not hold any further relevant information. The complainant disagrees and considers that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities HDC was correct to say that it does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require HDC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(1)
View Horsham District Council
7 Jun 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the council’s agreement with Urbaser Balfour Beatty, (UBB) to develop and run an Energy from Waste plant (an EfW) in Gloucestershire. The council disclosed the majority of the requested information, however, it applied Regulation 12(5)(e) to sections of a report “value for money and affordability analysis” written by Ernst & Young LLP. The complainant argues that further information from this report should have been disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council wrongly applied the exemption to some of the information within the report. She has also decided that the council failed to comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) and Regulation 14(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the information outlined in the Annex to this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0135 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Gloucestershire County Council
7 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to any safeguarding complaints or concerns raised with Ofsted about Elland Academy. Ofsted responded to the request refusing to disclose the requested information under section 33(1)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted has correctly applied section 33(1)(b) of the FOIA to the request and the public interest in favour if disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
7 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a disciplinary hearing he believes took place following a complaint he made to the Council. The Council refused to provide the information citing the exemptions provided by section 40(2) – third party personal data and section 41 – information provided in confidence, as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled in this case to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm whether it held the requested information, as to do so would in itself constitute the disclosure of personal data in breach of the data protection principles. Furthermore the Commissioner is satisfied that if the information was in fact held, it would be exempt from disclosure under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Spelthorne Borough Council
7 Jun 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the socioeconomic and educational backgrounds of applicants to the Government’s Fast Track scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to redact part of the disclosed information under section 40(2) and is entitled to withhold some of the information under section 23 and 24 in the alternative. The Commissioner does find, however, that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) by not citing the exemption on which it was relying. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet office to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the Act. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0149 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
6 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to female prisoners under the supervision of a specified member of staff at HMP Bronzefield. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) requested the request on the basis that it was vexatious and cited section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0132 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Justice
6 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested recorded information which relates to the Panshanger Gold Course at Old Herns Lane, Welwyn Garden City. The information the complainant seeks concerns health and safety assessments made at the golf course, together with detailed information about the maintenance of the golf course. The Council has provided the complainant with some information falling within the scope of his requests and it has informed the complainant that some of the information he has asked for is not held by the Council, but by Finesse Leisure Limited for its own purposes. The Commissioner’s decision is that under regulation 3(2)(b) of the EIR, the Council does not hold the information which the complainant has asked for and therefore the Council has complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner has decided that where information, which is relevant to the complainant’s request is held, it is held by Finesse Leisure Ltd solely for its own purposes and therefore that informa
Exemptions cited: EIR 3(2)(b); EIR 5(1)
View Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
4 Jun 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the council’s accounts. He requested copies of bank statements, a copy of a payments and receipts list and copies of bills received by the council relating to a statement made in the parish newsletter that legal bills had amounted to £23, 000. The council initially said that the complainant could only inspect copies of the bank statements rather than be provided with copies. It disclosed a copy of the payments and receipt list but the complainant asked for it to be provided in a different format as he said it was unreadable. The council initially refused to provide this. The council also did not initially respond to the request for copies of the legal bills other than to try to provide an explanation for the costs it had quoted. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the council disclosed the bank statements, provided the payments and receipts list in a different format. The Commissioner has therefore only considered the
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
4 Jun 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Oxitec UK Limited. Oxfordshire County Council refused the request, citing the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)) and commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Oxfordshire County Council failed to provide some of the requested information in time and breached regulation 5(2), and that it has correctly withheld information under regulation 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Oxfordshire County Council
4 Jun 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the Transport for London’s (TfL) decision on whether to grant Uber London Limited (ULL) an operator’s licence. TfL refused the request on the basis of the section 31 exemption for law enforcement. During the investigation TfL disclosed the requested information but the complainant wished the Commissioner to decide if TfL was correct to apply section 31 at the time of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has demonstrated that section 31(1)(c),prejudice to the administration of justice, is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31
View Transport for London
4 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the appointment of named High Court Judges. The Judicial Appointments Commission (the ‘JAC’) refused to provide the requested information citing section 41 of FOIA – information provided in confidence, for parts 1, 2 and 4 of the request. For part 3, it said the information could be found on its website and provided a weblink. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the JAC also cited section 44(1)(a) of FOIA - statutory prohibitions to disclosure - for the remaining withheld information. The complainant is only concerned with the material exempted under sections 41 and 44. The Commissioner’s decision is that the JAC has correctly applied section 44 on the basis that disclosure of the information requested in parts 1, 2 and 4 of the request was prohibited by section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. However, by relying on section 44(1)(a) at a late stage the JAC has breached section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Judicial Appointments Commission
4 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of an audit report relating to repairs to Ovingham Bridge. Northumberland County Council confirmed that some of the information was not held and withheld other information under the exception for commercial confidentiality – regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumberland County Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Northumberland County Council
1 Jun 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information related to a rota and details of pay supplements provided to consultants on rota from Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT). MFT provided the recorded information that was held followed by further explanations addressing the complainant’s queries.
The Commissioner’s decision is that MFT has provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the complainant’s request.
However, The Commissioner also finds that MFT breached section 10(1) of the FOIA due to the time it took to respond to the request.
The Commissioner does not require MFT to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
1 Jun 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested inspectors’ handwritten notes used to compile an inspection report on Orchard Lodge care home. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) withheld this information under sections 30(2) (investigations and proceedings), 31(1)(g) (law enforcement), 40(2) (third person personal data), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, CQC released some of the information, after redacting personal data under section 40(2) from part of it. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: CQC is correct to withhold a small amount of information from both Inspector 1’s notes and the feedback summary note under section 40(2) of the FOIA. CQC is correct to apply section 41(1) of the FOIA to the information it has withheld from Inspector 1’s notes and to Inspector 2’s notes in their entirety. CQC breached section 10(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1)(b) within 20 working days with resp
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40; FOI 41
View CQC
1 Jun 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked Bournemouth Borough Council to provide him with any correspondence where concerns have been raised about the Council’s A338-Wessex Fields proposals. The Council refused to comply with the complainant’s request in reliance on Regulation 12(4)(b), on the grounds that to do so would be manifestly unreasonable due to the significant burden imposed on the Council by the request in terms of cost. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bournemouth Borough Council has correctly applied Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to the complainant’s request. She finds that weight of the public interest lies in maintaining the Council’s application of this exception. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0125 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9(1)
View Bournemouth Borough Council
1 Jun 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant asked Bournemouth Borough Council (the Council) to provide him with all A338-Wessex Fields link-related correspondence between Councillors Mike Greens and John Beesley, officers in the Council’s planning department and members of the current Planning Board, for the period starting 1 January 2016 to the date of the request.
The Council refused to comply with the request as it considered it to be vexatious under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
The Commissioner also finds that in failing to respond to the request for an internal review within the statutory timeline, the Council has breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0127 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b)
View Bournemouth Borough Council
1 Jun 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a series of information relating to the London Borough of Wandsworth’s (“the London Borough’s”) use of a specific address to house individuals with mental health conditions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Wandsworth failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”). The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Wandsworth
31 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking details of the amount of funding given to the Quilliam Foundation for each financial year from 2007-08 with the annual figures further broken down by individual project. The FCO withheld this information on the basis of section 24(1) (national security) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that section 24(1) is not engaged.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
31 May 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the sender and recipients of emails archived by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP refused to comply with request on the grounds of cost and relied on section 12(1) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the Act to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner considers, however, that DWP did not fulfil its obligations under section 16 of the Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with adequate advice and assistance to aid meaningful refining of the request. 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 12; FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
31 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to specific properties. Great Yarmouth Borough Council (the council) refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered it to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council are able to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Great Yarmouth Borough Council
31 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about burial fees. Hughenden Parish Council disclosed information. The complainant contested that further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all held information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
31 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the behavioural impact of affected tax payers on revenue accrued to the public purse pursuant to the introduction of the income tax personal allowance taper in 2011. The public authority withheld the information held relying on the exemption at section 35(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was not entitled to rely on the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View HM Treasury
31 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to pre-application planning advice. Cornwall Council withheld the information under the exceptions for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)) and interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Cornwall Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) and regulation 12(5)(f) are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Cornwall Council
31 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding costs for a lawsuit that Chalfont St Peter Parish Council has instigated. The Commissioner’s decision is that Chalfont St Peter Parish Council has correctly applied the exception at section 42(1) FOIA (legal professional privilege) to withhold information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0124 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
31 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead (“the Council”) relating to advice received from a barrister for the Council about the proposed Borough Local Plan. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the information under section 42(1) of the FOIA – legal professional privilege. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0130 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Windsor and Maidenhead Council
31 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a report produced for the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) into police contact with a murder victim. The IOPC refused the request and cited the exemptions provided by the following sections of the FOIA: 30 (investigations), 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal information), 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC cited section 30 correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
31 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Dicconson Group Practice in which he asked for information to clarify a response he was given to an earlier request. The Practice said that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Practice does not hold any information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request and has dealt with the request in accordance with section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
30 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Somerset County Council about the siting of a telecommunications cabinet beside the A38 road in Somerset. The Commissioner’s decision is that Somerset County Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner requires Somerset County Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: to issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Somerset Council