16 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint submitted to the Commissioner under section 50 of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s Office disclosed some information and withheld other information under a range of exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Information Commissioner’s Office has failed to respond to the request in time and breached section 10(1) and section 17(3) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View Information Commissioner
16 May 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the decision to change the public authority’s official name from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request relying on the exemptions at section 36(2)(b) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was not entitled rely on section 36(2)(b), and in exercise of her discretion, further concluded that some of the information in scope was exempt on the basis of the exemption at section 42(1) FOIA. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 42
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
15 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from West Sussex County Council (“the Council”) about the number of times legal advice was provided to a named officer and how this was recorded. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly refused to respond to the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View West Sussex County Council
15 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) for copies of correspondence between it and The Duke of Edinburgh about Stephen Ward or the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s recent review of the Ward case. The AGO refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemption contained at section 37(2) of FOIA, by virtue of section 37(1)(ac) which provides that information is exempt from disclosure if it relates to communications with, or on behalf, a member of the Royal Family. The Commissioner has concluded that section 37(2) is engaged and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Attorney General's Office
15 May 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant originally made a request to what was then the Department of Health for information relating to the use of the NHS logo by the Vote Leave Campaign in the run up to the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. His original request was refused, but he later resubmitted that request as he considered it possible that with the passage of time the sensitivity of the information may have declined. When making this new request he also requested all the information held about the Department’s handling of his original request. In response to this new request a limited amount of information was disclosed to the complainant. Ultimately however section 36 – prejudice to the conduct of public, affairs was applied to all the remaining information, section 42 – legal professional privilege was also applied to a significant amount of this information, with sections 41 – information provided in confidence, and section 40 – personal information applied to a limited amoun
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 42
View Department of Health and Social Care
15 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for a report generated as a result of a lessons learned exercise into the Exemplar programme, a project concerning the transformation of digital services. The Cabinet Office withheld the information on the basis of section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy). The Commissioner has concluded that the information is exempt on the basis of section 35(1)(a) but that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
14 May 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the DfT to disclose the draft byelaws currently under discussion with Liverpool Airport. The DfT refused to disclose this information citing sections 22 and 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has correctly applied section 22 of the FOIA in this case and that the public interest in favour of disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 22
View Department for Transport
14 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of all guidelines issued by the public authority in relation to responding to requests for information concerning cyber-attacks under the FOIA. The public authority withheld the guidance held within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemptions at section 23(1) and section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 23(1). She however found the public authority in breach of the procedural provision in section 10(1) FOIA for failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
11 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Prison Service’s use of body worn video cameras. By the date of this notice, the MoJ has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
10 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request to Ofgem for information regarding its investigation into energy suppliers’ installation of Advanced Meters. Ofgem dealt with the request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and withheld the information under a number of exemptions under that legislation. The complainant had argued that the request ought to be considered under the EIR and whilst it maintained that FOIA was the correct regime to apply, it said that if the request was considered under the EIR then the information would be withheld under the exceptions in regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(b) (the course of justice etc), 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings), 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) and regulation 13 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is for environmental information and therefore the EIR applies. However, the Commissioner also found that the withheld information is exempt under regulation 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) and th
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
9 May 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for copies of the material that it continued to withhold from four files concerning the British Indian Ocean Territory. The FCO provided the complainant with some of the requested information but withheld the remainder on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that only some of the withheld information is exempt on the basis of these exemptions. The information in question is identified in the annex attached to this notice. The FCO also relied on the provision contained at section 17(4) of FOIA in order not to provide the complainant with its reasoning as to why sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) applied. The Commissioner has concluded that some, albeit not all, of this reasoning could be provided to the complainant without any exempt information being revealed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27; FOI 40
9 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an attempt to deport a named individual. The Home Office refused the request, citing the exemption provided by section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this exemption was cited correctly and so the Home Office was not obliged to disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
8 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from South Kesteven District Council (‘the Council’) guidance information concerning applications to reduce the amount of council tax payable under section 13(a) of the Local Government Act 1992. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: At the time of the request the Council did not hold the specific information requested but it breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA as it did not clearly confirm that the information was not held. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View South Kesteven District Council
8 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information associated with the Independent Tree Panel which was set up to give advice to Sheffield City Council (‘the Council’) on how it manages its highway trees. The Council denied holding the requested information and also said that some information that had some relevance to the complainant’s request was exempt from disclosure under section 21(1) of the FOIA (information accessible to the applicant). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council should have managed the request under the EIR and not the FOIA. In accordance with regulation 3(2) of the EIR, the Council did not hold information falling within the scope of the request at the time the request was received. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 3
View Sheffield City Council
8 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) its entire vehicle database. DVLA refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA as to do so would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(1) releases the DVLA from its obligation to comply with the request as to do so would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner has also decided that DVLA has not breached section 16(1)(advice and assistance) in its handling of this request. The Commissioner does not require DVLA to take any steps in order to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
8 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the delegation of appropriate authority powers under the Police Reform Act 2002. Norfolk Constabulary provided some relevant information but denied holding a specific ‘Deed of Delegation’ document. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Norfolk Constabulary did not hold the requested information and it therefore complied with the duty set out at section 1(1) (general right of access) of the FOIA. 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 1
View Norfolk Constabulary
4 May 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Harborough District Council for copies of recorded information concerning the discontinuance of a claim for judicial review which had been submitted by DB Symmetry Ltd. The Commissioner has decided that, on the balance of probability, the Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA by providing the complainant with all of the recorded information it holds which is relevant to the terms of his request. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with relevant information within twenty working days of its receipt of his request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Harborough District Council
4 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the HS2 project referring to a transcript of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee hearing on HS2 held on 11 July 2017. HS2 refused to
provide the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), section 36(2)(c) and section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and as far as the Commissioner considers the withheld information to be environmental, it argued regulation 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) would apply. The Commissioner’s decision is that HS2 should have dealt with the request under EIR as the information requested is environmental under regulation 2(2) EIR. She considers that HS2 correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) EIR to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/1377/2019 PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
4 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Warwickshire County Council that relates to the admission process for grammar schools in its area. The council refused the request under the exemption covering vexatious requests-section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0099 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Warwickshire County Council
4 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the television production Strictly Come Dancing. 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
3 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to non-compliant FOIA requests and internal reviews. North Yorkshire Police refused to provide the requested information, relying on section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious request). In light of the passage of time, North Yorkshire Police revised its position during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation and disclosed the requested information to the complainant. While acknowledging that disclosure, at the request of the complainant the Commissioner investigated whether North Yorkshire Police was correct to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA at the time of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Yorkshire Police was entitled, at the time of the request, to refuse the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View North Yorkshire Police
3 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a community eating disorder evaluation report presented to South Devon and Torbay Clinical Commissioning Group (“the CCG”). The CCG refused to provide this on the basis of sections 43, 36 and 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG has failed to demonstrate that any of the cited exemptions are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the community eating disorder evaluation report.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 41; FOI 43
View NHS South West London Clinical Commissioning Group
3 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted multiple requests for copies of correspondence, meeting minutes and agendas involving the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and current and former members of its Advisory Panel. The Office of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner estimated that compliance with the requests would exceed the appropriate costs limit and refused them under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Office of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Office of the Independent Prevent Commissioner
2 May 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of the internal investigation report carried out by Total into the blowout at the Elgin 4 Well Head in 2012. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health & Safety Executive does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. However, in failing to inform the complainant within 20 working days that it required further time to consider the request, it breached Regulation 7(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0114 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 7
View Health and Safety Executive
2 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a report on Newham Council's property licensing scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Newham (“the London 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 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 Newham Council
2 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific MP’s involvement with a local school. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Bromley has 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 London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the Act, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bromley Council
2 May 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request containing 6 questions related to traffic signs shown on the M1 motorway on a specific date and time period. Highways England (HE) provided some of the requested information and stated that it did not hold any further information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, HE does not hold information further to that already provided.
However, she found that HE breached section 10(1) of the FOIA due to the time it took to respond to the request.
The Commissioner does not require HE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View National Highways
2 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested data relating to ‘lessons learned’ within the Ministry of Justice from reviews of some of its projects and programmes from the government’s Major Projects Portfolio. The Commissioner decided that the Ministry of Justice was entitled to rely on section 12(1) FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) to refuse the requests and that it was entitled to aggregate three of the requests under section 12(4) FOIA and the Fees Regulations. The Ministry of Justice had also provided the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with section 16(1) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Ministry of Justice
2 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the prescribing of Dexamethasone and Cyclophosphamide. The Commissioner’s decision is that Upton Road Surgery (the surgery) has incorrectly cited section 21 (information accessible by other means) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the surgery was in breach of section 10 of the FOIA as it did not provide a response within the statutory 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with a new response without reliance on section 21. 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; FOI 21
2 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about citizenship applications refused under the good character requirement. The Home Office refused the request on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office applied section 12(1) incorrectly as it did not estimate reasonably that the cost of the request would exceed the limit. She also finds that in failing to advise and assist the complainant on how to refine his request to bring it within the cost limit, the Home Office breached section 16(1) of the FOIA. It is now required to write to the complainant with a fresh response to his request.
The complainant requested information about citizenship applications refused under the good character requirement. The Home Office refused the request on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office applied section 12(1) incorrectly as it did not estimate reasonably that the cost of the request would
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
2 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the way the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (“the Royal Borough”) handled the aftermath of the Grenfell disaster and the associated costs it had incurred. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough has 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 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
2 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information surrounding the revocation of specific Tree Preservation Orders (“TPOs”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Sutton 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 public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the Regulations, to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Sutton
2 May 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the council’s plans to construct a new town currently known as Otterpool Park and its collaboration with its development partner Cozumel Estates Limited (Cozumel). The council disclosed some information but refused to disclose other information citing regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council confirmed that it no longer wished to rely on regulation 12(5)(f), as it felt on reflection that regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR applied instead. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR to the remaining withheld information and that the public interest rests in favour of maintaining these exceptions. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Folkestone and Hythe District Council
1 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from East Riding of Yorkshire Council (“the Council”) relating to settlement agreements. Some information was provided during the course of the investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the remainder of the information under the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
1 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the DWP’ team addresses and connected information. The DWP, holding the information, split the information into two types. That is public facing email addresses and email addresses which are solely for internal use. It relies on section36 (2) (c) to only withhold email addresses which are solely for internal use. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP correctly relied upon section 36(2)(c) to withhold the DWP’ email addresses which are solely for internal use. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/133/2019 PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions
1 May 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a named individual’s passport application and associated correspondence, submitting that this person is deceased. In the absence of any firm evidence or authoritative official confirmation that the named individual is deceased, the Home Office refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, citing section 40(5), the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (‘NCND’) provision for personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was correct to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request, by virtue of section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
1 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about costs relating to the local Neighbourhood Plan. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thorne-Moorends Town Council breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory 20 working day time limit.
The Commissioner requires Thorne-Moorends Town Council to issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
1 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a kosher food trial in prisons and also about the regulations applying to prisoners within a specialist unit in HMP Frankland. The Commissioner decided that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) had breached sections 1 and 10 FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. She requires MOJ to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17(1) FOIA. MOJ 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
1 May 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about West Midland Police’s (‘WMP’) use of agents provocateurs and similar techniques. After clarifying the request with the complainant, WMP stated that the use of agent provocateurs is illegal and is not used by the Police Service, but would neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) whether it held any further information, citing section 31(3), the NCND exemption for law enforcement. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, WMP also sought to rely on section 38(2), the NCND exemption for health and safety. In both instances, WMP concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed that in disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP was entitled to NCND whether it held the requested information by virtue of section 31(3) of FOIA. However, by relying on section 38(2) which it had not mentioned at or before the internal review, WMP has also breached section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissio
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31
View West Midlands Police
1 May 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about unsolved crimes from Kent Police; to date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police 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 Kent Police
30 Apr 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of emails sent and received by the Director General for Tax and Welfare within a specified period in relation to the changes announced in Spring Budget 2017 to National Insurance contributions paid by the self-employed. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemptions at sections 35(1)(a), 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(1)(a) FOIA
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View HM Treasury
30 Apr 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Cheshire East Council (the council) a copy of an email relating to a meeting of the staffing sub-committee. The council said that the information was exempt under the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the FOIA. This exemption relates to third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”) however she was satisfied that the equivalent exception under regulation 13(1) applied. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Cheshire East Council
27 Apr 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the 1992 Precedent Book. 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. As the requested information has now been supplied, the Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
26 Apr 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In ten requests the complainant has requested information from East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) about aspects of its performance and its operations. The Trust has refused to comply with the requests which it says are vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s ten requests are not vexatious and the Trust is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA with regard to these requests. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the ten requests in the appendix to this notice that does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust
26 Apr 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about any statutory notices under the Highways Act relating to a specific property. Kent County Council informed the complainant that it was charging a fee of £25.20 (including VAT) for the information in accordance with regulation 8 of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Council subsequently clarified to the Commissioner that the fee of £25.20 represented an actual charge of £21.00, and applied VAT of £4.20. The Commissioner finds that the actual charge of £21 is reasonable and in accordance with regulation 8. The Commissioner does not find any basis under the EIR upon which the Council can also apply VAT of £4.20. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps, but advises it to refer to her findings about VAT should the complainant wish to proceed with the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 8
View Kent County Council
26 Apr 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the provision of dog parks from East Staffordshire Borough Council. The Council disclosed information in response. The complainant contests that further information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council has disclosed all information. However, the Council breached regulation 5(2) by providing this information outside the time for compliance, and regulation 14 by failing to issue a refusal notice for information which has been redacted. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View East Staffordshire Borough Council
26 Apr 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about refuse and recycling collections in Cornwall against individual addresses and in a specific format. The Council initially provided unique property reference numbers (UPRNs), a link to its rubbish, recycling and waste webpage and waste depot dates. However the Council withheld specific addresses associated with the UPRNs under section 21 of the FOIA (information reasonably accessible by other means), as these could be obtained from Ordnance Survey (OS). The Council also applied section 43 of the FOIA (commercial interests exemption). The Commissioner asked the Council to review its response under the EIR and the Council then maintained it was commercial information under regulation 12(5)(e) and it was not in the public interest to release it. The Council also maintained that it did not hold the collection database as it said that this information was held by a contractor. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cornwall Council has not pr
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 3; EIR 6
View Cornwall Council
26 Apr 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for the names of individuals involved in drafting a particular document. The CCG refused to disclose the requested information under section 40(2) FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG has correctly applied section 40(2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
26 Apr 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Scarborough Borough Council, such as swimming pool sample results and visual checks, in relation to an investigation about a local leisure facility. The Council refused the request on the basis of section 30(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30(1)(b) is engaged. However she finds that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information it holds within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
25 Apr 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Lancashire (“the OPCC”) about complaints it had received about the Chief Constable of Lancashire Police. The OPCC disclosed some information about the number of complaints received and the category of each complaint, but refused to provide details of individual allegations, citing the exemption under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OPCC was entitled to withhold the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. She also found that the OPCC had complied with section 1(1)(b) of the FOIA in that it had correctly disclosed the information it held with regard to complaint numbers.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40