10 Apr 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about the decision to award Kevin Spacey any honours. The Cabinet Office confirmed it held information falling within the scope of the request but it withheld this on the basis of section 37(1)(b) (the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity) and section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 37(1)(b) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
5 Apr 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a hydraulic fracturing operation. Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (the FRS) dealt with the request under the FOIA and refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing the exemptions provided by sections 24(2) (national security), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 38(2) (health and safety) of the FOIA. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the FRS acknowledged that at least some parts of the request should have been dealt with under the EIR and issued a further response to the complainant under the EIR. It maintained the refusal to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held and cited the exception provided by regulation 12(5)(a) / 12(6) (national security) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is first that the whole of the complainant’s request should have been dealt with under the EIR. Secondly, she finds that the exception provided by regulation 12(5)(a) / 12(6) is not engaged and n
Exemptions cited: EIR 12; EIR 12(5)(a)
View Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service
5 Apr 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests, the complainant has requested information about tail breaches and Unit Hours Production for the months of May and June 2017. East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (‘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 that the complainant’s requests are not vexatious and the Trust is not entitled to rely on section 14(1). The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the complainant’s requests 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
5 Apr 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to repair works at a specified property. The Council has failed to respond to the request; therefore the Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to comply with section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ealing Council
5 Apr 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application. The Council released a large volume of information in response and additional information was released at the internal review stage. Believing there was still more information held, the complainant complained to the Commissioner. During the Commissioner’s investigation some further information was identified and disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has now released all the information captured by the request save for some very minor redactions that were made to protect personal data. However as the information was not communicated within the time limits set out in the legislation the Commissioner finds the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not however require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Merton Council
5 Apr 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with a complaint he had submitted to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) about Eden District Council. LGO withheld the majority of the information under section 40(1) of the FOIA as it is the complainant’s own personal data. It released this information to the complainant under the Data Protection Act, having redacted the personal data of third persons. LGO has withheld some information under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that: LGO is entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) with respect to the information it has withheld under this exemption. The Commissioner does not require LGO to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0085 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
4 Apr 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information asking whether staff working in the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s internal investigations unit, were ex police officers or staff. The IOPC withheld in the requested information, citing section 40(2) (3rd party personal information) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Independent Office for Police Conduct has applied section 40(2) of the FOIA appropriately.
The Commissioner does not require the Independent Office for Police Conduct to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
4 Apr 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the University of Hertfordshire’s practices and procedures for academic staff career progression (promotion). The University of Hertfordshire
(University) considers the request to be vexatious under section 14 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA. However, in failing to issue a refusal notice within the time for compliance the University breached section 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View University of Hertfordshire
3 Apr 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the criminal case file held by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in respect of a crime for which he was the alleged victim. The CPS said that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 30(1)(c) (investigations and proceedings) and section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner considered whether the request was primarily for the complainant’s own personal data, and found that it was. The Commissioner has therefore decided that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of the FOIA and that the CPS should have cited section 40(5)(a) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0094 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
3 Apr 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the number of Plymouth Court cases struck out as a result of administrative error. The Ministry of Justice confirmed it held information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it citing the section 32(1) FOIA (court records) exemption. The Commissioner investigated the application by the Ministry of Justice of the section 32(1)(c)(ii) FOIA exemption and decided that the Ministry of Justice was entitled to rely on this exemption to withhold the requested information. She required no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
29 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the numbers of employees who were receiving ongoing over and/or under payments identified by a review into staff salaries. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire County Council (“the Council”) has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also determined that there is no further action required under section 16(1) (advice and assistance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Lancashire County Council
29 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested files held by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) on the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ’s) compliance with the FOIA. The ICO confirmed information was held but refused to provide this on the basis of the exemption from disclosure at section 31 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) in conjunction with 31(2)(c) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Information Commissioner
29 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked the Big Lottery Fund (the BLF) to provide a number of items of information relating to a list of various organisations. The BLF provided some parts of the requested information. It refused to provide other parts however, citing sections 12(1) (costs of compliance) and 40(2) (third party personal data) of FOIA. The BLF also refused to confirm or deny whether it held some aspects of the requested information under sections 31(3) (law enforcement), 40(5) and 41(2) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner has decided that the BLF correctly relied on the exemptions cited with the exception of section 40(5), which she has decided is not engaged. The Commissioner therefore requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response which does not cite the application of section 40(5) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 31; FOI 40; FOI 40; FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View Big Lottery Fund
29 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of letters read out at / supplied to the Council’s AGM in 1990. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probability Betchton Parish Council does not hold the information requested.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
29 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to the employment of a named individual by ESSA Foundation Academies Trust (ESSA Academy). The request contained 6 questions. ESSA Academy provided the information requested by the first question, while for the rest of the request neither confirmed nor denied holding information by virtue of section 40(5) personal information of FOIA
The Commissioner’s decision is that ESSA Academy has correctly applied the exemption provided by section 40(5).
The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View STAR ACADEMIES
28 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks on The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The department neither confirmed nor denied whether it held information within scope of the request, relying on the exclusion at section 31(3) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that DEFRA was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within scope of the first part of the request, but was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the second part of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
28 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of all email correspondence sent by a number of named officers at Kent County Council (the council) and staff at Simon Langton Girls’ Grammar School. He has also asked for certain information relating to contracts or agreements that have been drafted since January 2017 that relate to any member of staff at the school. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Kent County Council
28 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the BBC about pay gaps. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the BBC has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has not complied with section 1(1) within 20 working days with respect to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Respond to the complainant’s request of 12 January 2018 by issuing a substantive response that meets the requirements of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View BBC
28 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks on the Home Office. The department neither confirmed nor denied whether it held information within scope of the request, relying on the exclusions at sections 24(2) and 31(3) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Home Office was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within scope of the first part of the request, but was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the second part of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31
View Home Office
28 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks on The Department for Education (DfE). The department neither confirmed nor denied whether it held information within scope of the request, relying on the exclusion at section 31(3) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that DfE was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within scope of the first part of the request, but was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the second part of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Department for Education
28 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various statistical information regarding pregnant prisoners. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (“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 public authority to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
28 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the email address relating to a submission made to Companies House. The Commissioner’s decision is that Companies House has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold this information. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0069 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Companies House
28 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the expert guidance that has been sought by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council in making a decision. The Council refused to comply with the request under section 14(1). The complainant subsequently contested the application of section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1). However, the Council breached section 17(1) by providing its refusal notice outside of the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
28 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to correspondence between Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. The Commissioner’s decision is that The National Archives (TNA) has correctly applied section 38(1)(a) of the FOIA 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 38
View The National Archives
28 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks on The Department for International Development (DfID). The department neither confirmed nor denied whether it held information within scope of the request, relying on the exclusion at section 31(3) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that DfID was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within scope of the first part of the request, but was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the second part of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Department for International Development
28 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks on The Department for Transport (DfT). The department neither confirmed nor denied whether it held information within scope of the request, relying on the exclusions at sections 24(2) and 31(3) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the DfT was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within scope of the first part of the request, but was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the second part of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31
View Department for Transport
28 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks on HM Treasury (the Treasury). The department neither confirmed nor denied whether it held information within scope of the request, relying on the exclusions at sections 24(2) and 31(3) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Treasury was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within scope of the first part of the request, but was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the second part of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31
View HM Treasury
28 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks on the Attorney General’s Office (AGO). The department neither confirmed nor denied whether it held information within scope of the request, relying on the exclusions at sections 24(2) and 31(3) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the AGO was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within scope of the first part of the request, but was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the second part of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31
View Attorney General's Office
28 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks on The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The department neither confirmed nor denied whether it held information within scope of the request, relying on the exclusions at sections 24(2) and 31(3) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the DWP was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within scope of the first part of the request, but was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the second part of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31
View Department for Work and Pensions
28 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks on The Ministry of Justice (MoJ). The department neither confirmed nor denied whether it held information within scope of the request, relying on the exclusion at section 31(3) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that MoJ was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within scope of the first part of the request, but was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the second part of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Ministry of Justice
28 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks on The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). The department neither confirmed nor denied whether it held information within scope of the request, relying on the exclusions at sections 24(2) and 31(3) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within scope of the first part of the request, but was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the second part of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31
28 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks on The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). The department neither confirmed nor denied whether it held information within scope of the request, relying on the exclusion at section 31(3) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that MHCLG was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within scope of the first part of the request, but was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the second part of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
28 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Highways England about the level of charges which are payable to its contracted company or companies in respect of repairs to the road or other infrastructure following an accident. The Commissioner’s decision is that Highways England 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0088 allowed
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View National Highways
28 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Health (DoH) Northern Ireland in relation to the Hay review of senior executive pay in Health and Social Care (HSC). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH has correctly applied section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA to the requested information, therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health NI
28 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) refused to disclose the information held within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemptions at sections 31(1)(a), 24(1), 26(1)(a) and (b) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the MOD was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 24(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Ministry of Defence
28 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the number, nature, and effects of cyber-attacks. UK Export Finance (UKEF) refused to disclose the information held within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemption at section 31(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that UKEF was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 31(1)(a).
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View UK Export Finance
28 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information created following his request for an internal review (for a previous information request that he has made). Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council disclosed some information, and withheld the remainder under section 42(1). The complainant subsequently contested the application of section 42(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 42(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2021-0000404-GIRF allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
28 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) a full copy of an investigation report into allegations of misconduct and corruption that the complainant had made against a member of MMO staff. The Commissioner’s decision is that the majority of the requested information can be withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it is the personal data of third persons, with the remainder being exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) as it is the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner does not require MMO to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Marine Management Organisation
27 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the postcodes of children offered a place at a school. Lincolnshire County Council provided partial postcode information, but withheld full postcodes on the basis of the exemption for third party personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lincolnshire County Council has correctly applied the exemption. The council is not required to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Lincolnshire County Council
27 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the rates a particular contractor charges Highways England (HE) for its staff, known as Asset Incident Watchmen (AIW), to attend incidents on the routes it is responsible for. HE have refused the request under section 43(2) of the FOIA on the basis that disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of both itself and the contractor. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) is not engaged and therefore by failing to communicate the requested information HE has breached section 1(1)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information on the AIW hourly rates for each of the four areas managed by Kier for the period covered by the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View National Highways
27 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about special payments made by the Two Counties Trust (‘the Trust’) to former employees of the Manor Academy. The Trust released some information and withheld some under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third person personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is correct to withhold the disputed information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. She also finds that the Trust provided adequate advice and assistance to the complainant and therefore did not breach section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0070 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 40
27 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names of all external examiners and funding bodies for the PhDs of two members of the science faculty at the Open University. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Open University has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
26 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Work and Pensions (“the DWP”) about certain organisations’ participation in the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP has provided the complainant with the information which he had requested. However, the DWP has breached section 10 of the FOIA since it did not issue its response within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
26 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to herself. West Midlands Police explained that it was neither confirming nor denying whether it held the requested information by virtue of section 40(5)(a) (an applicant’s personal information) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that West Midlands Police has applied section 40(5)(a) of FOIA appropriately.
The Commissioner does not require West Midlands Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0091 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Midlands Police
26 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a published report on primary school catchment areas, following consultation by questionnaire. Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (the ‘Council’) responded, providing some of the requested information, but refused to provide the remainder as it said it would need to create information in order to do so. Having considered the information available the Commissioner is satisfied that the information requested by the complainant in part 2 of the request is not held by the Council and FOIA places no obligation on it to create new information in response to the request. In relation to part 3 of the request, the Commissioner finds, that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information beyond that already provided to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Southend-on-Sea City Council
26 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on TV Licensing’s policies on handling personal data. The BBC responded to the request, providing some information, stating some information was not held and withheld details of its security verification procedures on the basis of section 31 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has correctly engaged section 31 of the FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View BBC
26 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from West Mercia Police about the Worcestershire Safety Camera Partnership. West Mercia Police said that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, West Mercia Police did not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Mercia Police
26 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Home Office information in relation to the number of suspected sham marriages and civil partnerships referred for investigation, those investigated and of those investigated, the number where enforcement action was taken for 2014/15 and 2015/16. The Home Office withheld the requested information under Sections 12(1) (costs) and 31(1) (prejudice to law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has successfully applied Section 12(1). The Commissioner does not requires the Home Office to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Home Office
26 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the potential use of land at Ferriby Road, colloquially known as Top Field. North Lincolnshire Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for commercial interests – section 43(2) of the FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s involvement the council disclosed further information and reconsidered the request under the EIR, withholding information under the exceptions for material in the course of completion (regulation 12(4)(d)) and commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that North Lincolnshire Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1) of the EIR, failed to demonstrate that the public interest in maintaining regulation 12(4)(d) outweighed the public interest in disclosure and failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) was engaged. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0107 disposed of by consent
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
View North Lincolnshire Council
23 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about litter hotspots and this was provided by Highways England (HE) within 18 working days. The complainant contends that the information was not made available “as soon as possible”. The Commissioner’s decision is that there has been no breach of the time limits in Regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require HE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View National Highways