30 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information referring to Ordnance Survey terminology in Hambleton District Council’s (“the Council”) flood risk assessment. The Council stated that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Hambleton District Council did not hold the requested information and it had therefore complied with the duty set out at section 1(1) (general right of access) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
30 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to West Midland Police’s Economic Crime Unit. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Midlands Police failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. As the requested information has been supplied, the Commissioner does not require West Midlands Police to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West Midlands Police
30 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Kirby Muxloe Parish Council (“the Council”) information relating to the tenancy agreement and deposit for Court Close. The Council has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) time for compliance in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: The Council must provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. 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 10
30 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to development improvement in the Paths Estate, Hightown, Luton. Luton Borough Council disclosed some information and confirmed that other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Luton Borough Council correctly confirmed that it did not hold the information in part 1 of the request and that it has complied with regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0056 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Luton Borough Council
30 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Thanet District Council (‘the Council’) about its digital activities. At the date of this notice, the Council has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has failed to provide a response to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a response to the complainant’s request of 27 January 2018 in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Thanet District Council
29 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for information with regards to an insurance matter. Norwich City Council (the council) refused both requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered them to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to both requests and that the council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA to the first request as it responded to it outside the required 20 working day timeframe. As the council has now responded to both requests, the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0126 Under Appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Norwich City Council
29 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Northern Ireland Screen’s script funding processes. Northern Ireland Screen provided some information to the complainant, however it stated that it did not hold information falling within the scope of the other part of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities Northern Ireland Screen does not hold further information within the scope of the complainant’s request and therefore has complied with its duties under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Northern Ireland Office
29 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of an analysis he claims was carried out by the public authority on the benefits of future free-trade agreements between the United Kingdom and non-European Union countries, compared with the costs of leaving the European Union’s customs union. The public authority neither confirmed nor denied holding such an analysis, relying on section 27(4) (International relations), 29(2) (The economy) and 35(3) (Formulation of development of government policy).The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exclusion at section 27(4).
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View HM Treasury
29 May 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the CCMS regarding panel interviews for a position at a specific school. The CCMS disclosed some of that information (“the withheld information”) however it refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 40(2) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCMS has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to part of the withheld information, however it has incorrectly applied section 36(2)(c) to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner requires the CCMS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
To disclose to the complainant the information withheld from him under section 36(2)(c). The CCMS 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
29 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the full copy of the financial appraisal supporting statement produced on behalf of developers in support of their planning application for a specific site. The Council which had already published a redacted version of the report, refused to disclose the full report on the basis that the redacted information was exempt under regulations 12(5)(e) – commercial confidentiality, and 12(5)(f) – prejudice of the interest of the person who provided the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exception applies to the all the withheld information, but they do both apply to the same, limited amount of information. However the aggregated public interest in maintaining those exceptions is not greater than the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the Financial Appraisal Supporting Statement in full.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
29 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a Traffic Regulation Order. Essex County Council (the council) provided the information however, the complainant considered that more information was held by the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided all the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Essex County Council
29 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the transcript for a 2017 Employment Appeal Tribunal proceeding involving Uber from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The Commissioner’s decision is that the 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 respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
25 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to public registers of lists held by Folkestone Harbour Company (FHC). The Commissioner’s decision is that FHC does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
25 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to risk assessments conducted by different bus operators under the jurisdiction of Transport for London (TfL) for a specified period of time. TfL provided some information to the complainant, but stated that the remainder was not held. The Commissioner’s view is that the complainant’s request was not clear, therefore TfL was under an obligation under section 16(1) of the FOIA to contact the complainant and seek clarification of the request. In failing to do so, TfL breached section 16(1) of the FOIA. It is now required to remedy this breach by contacting the complainant and seeking clarification about his request. TfL also 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 take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Write to the complainant seeking clarification of his request for “a summary list for each”.The public
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16
View Transport for London
25 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Winter Fuel Payments to recipients in France. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions correctly relied on section 12 (cost limit) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0196 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department for Work and Pensions
25 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a monument of George Orwell. 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
25 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the Conservators of Therfield Heath and Greens (‘the Conservators’) its full accounts or all information relating to its income and expenditure. The Commissioner has previously established that the Conservators are a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. Her decision in this case is that, if it were held, at least some of the requested information would be environmental information but that the Conservators do not hold information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Conservators to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
24 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested handwritten notes of the judge in his employment tribunal. The Ministry of Justice has neither confirmed nor denied whether it holds any information by virtue of section 32(3) (court records) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice has applied section 32(3) of the FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner does not requires the Ministry of Justice to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
24 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested internal communications relating to the council’s handling of his previous information requests. The council refused the request, withholding the information under the exceptions for disclosure of personal data, internal communications, and the adverse effect to the course of justice/the ability to conduct an inquiry of a criminal nature – regulations 13, 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that for the most part, the council has applied the exception to disclosure provided by regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR correctly, however there are a small number of documents to which regulation 12(4)(e) has been claimed where on balance the public interest lies in favour disclosure, and the council has therefore breached the EIR in respect of these. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0123 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13
View Stratford-on-Avon District Council
23 May 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a number of transactions that took place in 2006 relating to the Compulsory Purchase Orders for the 2012 Olympics. The GLA disclosed the recorded information it holds and informed the complainant that it does not hold the remaining information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, further information was identified and disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner is however now satisfied that on the balance of probabilities all the recorded information the GLA holds has been identified and provided to the complainant and the GLA does not hold any further recorded information falling within the scope of the requests. The Commissioner has however recorded a breach of regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0134 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5
View Greater London Authority
23 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to 'Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial'. QMUL confirmed that the requested information was not held under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the information requested was not held my QMUL under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Queen Mary University of London
23 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested advice provided to the senior officers of Tandridge District Council by the chief executive of another nearby local authority, together with supporting documentation. Tandridge District Council refused the request relying on the section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 42 (legal professional privilege) FOIA exemptions. During the Commissioner’s investigation, Tandridge District Council disclosed some of the requested information but continued to withhold part of it. The Commissioner was satisfied that section 36(2) FOIA is engaged in respect of all of the information still being withheld and that the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner did not require Tandridge District Council to take any action. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Tandridge District Council
23 May 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust (the Trust) relating to its GUM YourSHIP department and service line policies. The Trust cited section 21 as it considered the requested information is accessible to the complainant by other means and confirmed that they did not hold any further information. The complainant considered that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust correctly applied section 21 and does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0115 part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 21
View University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust
22 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to Redbridge London Borough Council (“the Council”) for details of its insurance premiums. The Council refused the request under the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 43(2) exemption is not engaged.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Redbridge Council
22 May 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked whether the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire is or has ever been a member of the Freemasons. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire (“the PCC”) said that it did not hold information from which the request could be answered. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the PCC did not hold the requested information. However, the Commissioner found breaches of section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA in the PCC’s failure to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
22 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to know how many burglaries and robberies took place in a geographical area over three days in 2017. Hampshire Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny holding this information, citing sections 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary has not demonstrated that either exemption is engaged. The Commissioner requires Hampshire Constabulary to issue a fresh response to the request, which is compliant with section 17 of the FOIA and which does not rely on section 30(3) or section 40(5) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 40
22 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the filming agreement between Bedfordshire Police and a television production company. Bedfordshire Police refused the request, citing the non-disclosure exemption at section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bedfordshire Police was not entitled to rely on section 43(2) to withhold the requested information. It also breached section 10(1) by failing to comply with section 1(1) within the time for compliance. The Commissioner requires Bedfordshire Police to disclose to the complainant the information which has been withheld under section 43(2) of the FOIA, excluding the camera rig plan and the personal data of the individuals identified in the withheld information. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 43
View Bedfordshire Police
21 May 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the creation of a Food Hub near Norwich. Broadland District Council initial refused the request, citing the exemption for commercial interests – section 43(2) of the FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s involvement the public authority reconsidered the request under the EIR, disclosing some information and withholding other 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 Broadland District Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and 14(1) of the EIR and that it correctly withheld information under regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
View Broadland District Council
21 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted an information request comprised of two questions related to the status of enforcement action being taken by Dover District Council (the Council) regarding a specific location. The Council confirmed that information was withheld under regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice, etc) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR when it withheld the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Dover District Council
21 May 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) about various matters. DWP has relied on section 12 – costs of compliance exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse this request. She notes that the response to the request was provided outside of the statutory 20 day time limit and accordingly DWP has breached section 10 FOIA. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
View Department for Work and Pensions
21 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Warwickshire County Council which the Commissioner has decided is the complainant’s personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that Warwickshire County Council inappropriately applied section 30(2) and 40(2) of the FOIA to the information the complainant seeks.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 40
View Warwickshire County Council
21 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has alleged that the public authority has failed to respond to his information requests. The Council says it has provided all the relevant information it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority does not hold any further information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Stafford Borough Council
21 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested emails, notes, documents or files from or to a named official of HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) covering certain matters and dates, which relate to two previous information requests submitted by the complainant. HMRC refused to provide the information relying on section 40(2) (personal information). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation HMRC decided to also invoke section 36(2)(b) and (c) of the FOIA as it considered that disclosure would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views, or would otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.
The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC correctly applied section 36(2)(b) and section 40(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information.
The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
21 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Warwickshire County Council following its decision to remove him from its list of Out of Hours Arboricultural Contractors, and following the Council’s letter of 20 February 2017 to the complainant which set out ‘concerns’ about the complainant’s work. The complainant asked to be given evidence which substantiate the claims made by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Warwickshire County Council should have refused the complainant’s request in reliance on section 40(1) of the FOIA on the grounds that the information he has asked for constitutes his personal data. The Council should then have dealt with the complainant’s request under the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Warwickshire County Council
21 May 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made two information requests in which he seeks various information about the handling of a planning complaint and associated information requests that he has made. Leeds City Council disclosed held information in response, but under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. The complainant subsequently contested that further information was held that should be provided under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of the probabilities, the Council does not hold further information that would fall under the terms of the EIR. However, the Council breached regulation 5(1) by providing a response to the requests outside the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0067 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/440/2019 struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Leeds City Council
21 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the University of Cambridge (the University) information relating to research grants and sponsorship. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request would impose a grossly oppressive burden on the University and that the University correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View The University of Cambridge
21 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the number plates of international organisations and diplomatic cars. The Commissioner’s decision is that DVLA has correctly applied section 27(1)(a) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
18 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a lease agreement with Holland Park School. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea 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 public authority 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 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
18 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about trading licences issued for the Notting Hill Carnival. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (“the Royal Borough”) 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 public authority 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 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
18 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Work and Pensions (“the DWP”) about which of its work experience schemes for people seeking employment were offered by a particular organisation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP has correctly refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA as the time for compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner does not require the DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department for Work and Pensions
18 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of complaints made against Frankie Boyle. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
18 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information on 17 January 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Hackney 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 public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to request number FOI18-0117-18426.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Hackney
18 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about various contracts that Kirby Muxloe Parish Council (“the Parish Council”) had entered into. The Commissioner’s decision is that 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”). The Commissioner requires the public authority 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
17 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Test Valley Borough Council (the Council) information on a report it obtained in relation to its options for taking legal action against a private individual. The Council has withheld the information under Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(b) and therefore does not require it to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Test Valley Borough Council
17 May 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for documents concerning the attempted bombing of an El Al flight that was to fly out from Heathrow Airport in April 1986. The FCO provided the complainant with some of the information but withheld the remainder on the basis of section 23(1) (security bodies), sections 27(1)(a) and (2) (international relations) and section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The complainant challenged the FCO’s reliance on sections 27(1)(a) and (2). The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO has correctly relied on section 27(1)(a) and this exemption also provides a basis to withhold the information to which section 27(2) was applied. However, she has also concluded that the FCO breached section 17(3) by failing to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable timeframe. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0119 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27
17 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office about the number of flexible and permanent Border Force staff. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office 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 Home Office to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
17 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the CCTV camera located in Manor Road. The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (“LBRT”) provided an explanation about how the camera works. After internal review, it provided links to more information available online. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBRT does not hold any further information within the scope of the complainant’s request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Richmond upon Thames Council
17 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a named Judge, including the number of complaints made about him. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it citing section 32(1) (court records) of the FOIA. It also refused to confirm or deny holding some information within the scope of the request by virtue of sections 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure), 40(5) (personal information) and 32(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 32(1)(b) and (c)(ii) to withhold the information within the scope of parts 1-4 of the request. She also found that the MoJ correctly applied section 44(2) of the FOIA to the remaining requested information on the basis that confirmation or denial was prohibited by section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA). She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32; FOI 44
View Ministry of Justice
16 May 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held in relation to the decision to change the name of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The information was withheld by the public authority on the basis of the exemptions at sections 35(1)(a) and 42(1) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 42(1) to withhold some of the information but was not entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(1)(a) to withhold the rest of the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 42
View Cabinet Office
16 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to land comprised in several title numbers. The Commissioner’s decision is that Folkestone Harbour Company (FHC) does not hold any of the information requested. However, the Commissioner also finds that FHC did not comply with its duties under regulation 14(5)(a) as it failed to advise the complainant of his right to request a review. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)