23 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Financial Conduct Authority (‘the FCA’) about its response to Subject Access Requests. The FCA has refused to comply with the requests under section 12(1) of the FOIA as it considers to do so would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA: is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request; and has offered the complainant adequate advice and assistance under section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the FCA to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Financial Conduct Authority
23 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked Poole Borough Council to provide him with the Viability Appraisal associated with planning application APP/17/00379/P. The Council determined that parts of this document should be withheld in reliance on Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR on the grounds that the information is commercially sensitive and subject to an expectation of confidentiality. The Commissioner’s decision is that Poole Borough Council has properly applied Regulation 12(5)(e) to the withheld information and the Council is therefore entitled to continue to withhold that information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
23 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the GENVASC study. The University of Leicester (‘the University’) released some information; directed the complainant to where other information is already published and withheld some information under section 22A (research). During the Commissioner’s investigation the University voluntarily released that information – the study protocol. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The University has released all the information it holds that falls within the scope of the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The University was not entitled to rely on section 22A when it originally withheld some of the requested information. The University has now disclosed the withheld information and the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 22
View The University of Leicester
22 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a single-language policy. The complainant has requested information on projects undertaken in Bahrain by Northern Ireland Co-Operation Overseas (NI-CO). NI-CO initially provided some information and cited the exemptions at sections 27(1)(a), 27(1)(c) and 43(2) of the FOIA in respect of the remainder. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it transpired that NI-CO did not in fact hold the requested information within the meaning of section 3(2) of the FOIA. The information was in fact held on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). The Commissioner’s decision is that NI-CO holds the requested information on behalf of the FCO. Accordingly NI-CO cannot be required to take remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
22 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Scotland Office seeking information about its social media campaigns. It provided the complainant with some information but sought to withhold information about the evaluations of these campaigns on the basis of section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and information about the costs of the campaigns on the basis of section 43(2) commercial interests. The Commissioner has concluded that the Scotland Office can rely on these exemptions in the manner in which it has to withhold the information about the evaluation of the campaigns and the cost of these campaigns.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 43
View Scotland Office
22 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Information from Haringey Council (Haringey) about communications relating to a particular road (The Bank), road safety, parking and a particular school (Channing School). Haringey has refused his request as vexatious/manifestly unreasonable in accordance with section 14 FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Haringey is entitled to rely on section 14 and regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0087 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); FOI 14
View Haringey Council
22 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Highways England about charges. Highways England has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that: Highways England 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 26 May 2017 concerning charges by issuing a substantive response that meets the requirements of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View National Highways
22 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about students who have accessed counselling services. The University has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that the University 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
22 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about students who have accessed counselling services. The University has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that the University 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 Loughborough University
22 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) concerning allegations about Development Aid from People to People (DAPP). DFID confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but explained that it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test. To date, DFID has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations in relation to the request. By failing to complete these deliberations within a reasonable timeframe the Commissioner has concluded that DFID has breached section 17(3) of FOIA in respect of its handling of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Department for International Development
21 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the BBC about the closure of Caversham Park. The BBC has not provided a response to the request. 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 27 September 2017 by issuing a substantive response that meets the requirements of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View BBC
21 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked West Sussex County Council for information relating to instances where the Care Quality Commission has informed care homes of announced and unannounced inspections since April 2015. He has also asked for information relating to the care homes involved, the dates when contact was made, the names of officers making contact and how the contact made. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Sussex County Council has properly applied section 12(2) to the complainant’s request on the grounds that to confirm whether it holds the requested information would exceed the appropriate costs limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View West Sussex County Council
21 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recorded information from Bramber Parish Council which concerns the development of a Neighbourhood Plan by four parish council’s under the acronym “SWAB” – Steyning, Wiston, Ashurst and Bramber Neighbourhood Plan. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bramber Parish Council has breached section 11 of the FOIA, by failing to provide the complainant with the information she has requested in format she specified. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council has breached sections 1 and 17 of the FOIA, by failing to provide information to the complainant, relevant to her request or by failing to issue a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 11; FOI 17
21 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of where to address some concerns from Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons (HMIP). The Commissioner’s decision is that HMIP breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide the requested information within the statutory time limit. As a response has now been provided the Commissioner does not require HMIP to take any action as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16
View HM Inspectorate of Prisons
21 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about DEFRA’s awareness of the requirements in other EU member states regarding the trade in captive-bred, wild birds. The Commissioner has determined that DEFRA does not hold any information relevant to parts (1) and (2) of the request as numbered in this notice. However, the Commissioner’s decision is that DEFRA has incorrectly applied the exemption at section 21 of the FOIA to part (3) of this request. The Commissioner requires DEFRA to issue a fresh response to the complainant with regard to part (3) which does not rely on section 21. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0092 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 21
21 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’) about ballot papers and votes cast regarding a business development plan for Wednesbury. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Council 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 14 August 2017 by issuing a substantive response that meets the requirements of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sandwell Council
21 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the Ward Budget Scheme operating in the London Borough of Haringey. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not handled the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the information requested in points 3 and 4 of the request to ensure compliance with the legislation. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Haringey Council
21 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested noise data monitoring data, held by a third party, to which Lancashire County Council has access. The council has released some information but refused the remainder citing regulation 12(4)(a), information not held. The Commissioner has considered whether the requested information is held on behalf of the council by virtue of regulation 3(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is not held on behalf of Lancashire County Council, and furthermore that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all the information held. She therefore finds that that regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Lancashire County Council
20 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the precise location of fire hydrants within the Hartlepool Boundary. Cleveland Fire Brigade refused to provide the requested information citing section 24(1) of the FOIA (national security). The Commissioner’s decision is that Cleveland Fire Brigade was entitled to rely on section 24(1) to refuse to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Cleveland Fire Brigade
20 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to the process of dismissal of a named individual by Seaford Town Council (“the Council). The Council refused the request, citing the non-disclosure exemption at section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse parts of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
20 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the identity of a Commissioning Editor in the 1990s. The BBC 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 BBC does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
20 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of parking tickets issued to a specific vehicle. Cardiff Council (‘the Council’) refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held by virtue of section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response under the FOIA to the request which does not rely on section 40(5).
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cardiff Council
20 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to his address between Stratford-on-Avon District Council (the council) and Dorsington Parish Council and its residents. The Council refused the request, withholding the information under the exceptions for the adverse effect to the course of justice and personal data – regulations 12(5)(b) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to withhold the requested information. However she also finds the council in breach of regulation11(4) in providing an internal review outside the time specified. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0082 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Stratford-on-Avon District Council
20 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a report relating to unrepresented defendants in Crown court cases. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to disclose the report under the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) was engaged, but that the public interest did not favour maintaining the exemption. The MoJ is now required to disclose the withheld report.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
20 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (the ‘Council’) about applications made to attend a specified primary school, together with consultation about changing the admission boundaries for this school. The Council provided some of the requested information but withheld part of it, citing section 12(1) FOIA as it estimated that the cost of compliance with this part of the request would exceed the appropriate limit. It considered that the information requested in part 5 was exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) FOIA as it attracted legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council applied section 12(1) of FOIA correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with part 1 of the complainant’s information request. She also finds that section 42(1) is engaged in relation to part 5 of the request, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, the Council’s failure to provide a response confirming that
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 17; FOI 42
View Southend-on-Sea City Council
20 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a report relating to unrepresented defendants in Crown Court cases. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to disclose the report under the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) was engaged, but that the public interest did not favour maintaining the exemption. The MoJ is now required to disclose the withheld report.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
20 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) about tuberculosis (TB) results in herds with and without moved-in cattle. As an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), APHA does not constitute a public authority for the purposes of FOIA and EIR and so this notice is issued to its parent Department. However, in this notice, the Commissioner will refer to the public authority as APHA. APHA says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that APHA is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) and is satisfied that APHA met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0063 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
20 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to planning applications and enforcement notice appeals received by Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (“the council”). The council responded providing some of the information and stated that the remainder was not held. The complainant subsequently requested an internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to respond to the complainant’s request for an internal review and it has therefore breached regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the council to respond to the representations made by the complainant on 2 November 2017.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Southend-on-Sea City Council
20 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the future Coronation of the Prince of Wales as King. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether information relevant to the request was held. It cited section 37(2) of the FOIA on the basis that, if any information was held, it would relate to communications with the Sovereign or with the heir to the Throne as per sections 37(1)(a) and 37(1)(aa) of the FOIA respectively. The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s application of exemptions to information within the scope of parts (2) and (3) of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether relevant information was held under section 37(2). She also found that the MoJ breached section 17(1) of the FOIA as it did not issue its refusal notice to the complainant within 20 working days following receipt of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 37
View Ministry of Justice
20 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a report relating to unrepresented defendants in Crown Court cases. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to disclose the report under the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) was engaged, but that the public interest did not favour maintaining the exemption. The MoJ is now required to disclose the withheld report.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
20 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to civil court proceedings with a specific case reference number. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information citing sections 32(3) (court records) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has considered the MoJ’s application of section 32(3) of the FOIA. Her decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on that exemption to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
20 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information submitted by former Prime Ministers in relation to their claim for the Public Duty Costs Allowance. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose the information citing section 40(2) and section 41(1) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 40(2) and section 41(1) for part of the requested information but the remaining information should be disclosed.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the information that falls outside of the exemptions under section 40(2) and section 41(1).
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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0079 disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View Cabinet Office
20 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning applications for support by named companies received by the Exports Credit Guarantee Department between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2015 which disclose the involvement of an agent. The public authority provided the complainant with redacted copies of the application forms requested and confirmed that information (including the names of the relevant companies) was being withheld under sections 41(1)(information provided in confidence) and 43(2)(prejudice to commercial interests).
The Commissioner has found that the Exports Credit Guarantee Department is entitled to rely on section 41(1) to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View UK Export Finance
19 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the decision to relocate adult day care services from a particular centre and the assessments it had carried out in respect of the alternative venues to be used for providing that care. The council initially said that it did not hold the requested information. However during the course of the investigation the council reconsidered its interpretation of the request and ultimately provided information which the Commissioner considers does fall within its scope. The Commissioner’s decision is that by not providing this information within twenty working days the council has breached section 10 of the Act. However as the council has no provided the information the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View South Tyneside Council
19 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the trust to disclose a copy of its policy surrounding engagement. The trust provided a copy of the requested information to the complainant but failed to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust has breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in this case. But as the complainant is in receipt of the requested information, she requires no further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View North West Boroughs Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
19 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names of three numbers of staff at West Hertfordshire NHS Hospitals Trust (“the Trust”) who was referred to in code form. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 40(2) (third party personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
19 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complaints. The One Medical Group (the Group) says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Group is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) and is satisfied that the Group met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0058 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
19 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information in respect of a former Council tenant and his partner following a disturbance which was reported in the media and which necessitated the removal of individuals from the property by Dyfed Powys Police for their own safety. Dyfed Powys Police refused to confirm or deny whether it held relevant information citing section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Dyfed Powys Police was not obliged to confirm or deny if the requested information was held under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the following steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Dyfed-Powys Police
16 Mar 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 the charges local schools had paid for insurance cover. 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0075 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Redbridge Council
16 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Norfolk and Norwich University NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) associated with a particular individual’s medical treatment. At the date of this notice, the Trust has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Trust has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has not provided a response to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 22 August 2017.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
16 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning a meeting which took place on 13 June 2016 between his MP and the then Minister of State for Skills, Nick Boles MP and civil servants. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy originally withheld the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the FOIA but latterly, during the Commissioner’s investigation, applied section 14(1) to refuse the request on the grounds that it was vexatious. The Commissioner has decided that Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0061 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for Business and Trade
15 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about revisions to the guidance on the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (“the DVDS”). The Home Office confirmed that it held some of the requested information but refused to disclose it on the grounds that it was exempt under section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
15 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the activities of a named Police Constable from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time limit. As it has since responded the Commissioner does not require the MPS to take any action as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
15 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the agenda and minutes of a meeting which he believes took place after 14 May 2009 regarding the Iraq Inquiry. This meeting is referred to in other information that the Cabinet Office has disclosed under FOIA. The Cabinet Office initially confirmed holding this information but said it needed further time to consider the balance of public interest in relation to section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). It subsequently corrected what it considered to be an erroneous position and argued that it did not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does not hold any information within the scope of the request but that it contravened the requirements of section 10(1) of the Act by failing to provide a response within 20 working days of the date of the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
15 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a police Operation from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”); to date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that, although it has complied with section 17(1) (refusal of request) of the FOIA in stating which exemption is to be relied upon, by failing to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time period the MPS has breached section 17(3). She also finds that the MPS has breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA in failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the MPS to issue a substantive response to the complainant’s request, either disclosing the requested information or issuing a refusal notice which includes the outcome of any public interest considerations.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View Metropolitan Police Service
15 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information with regards to an application to register a piece of land as a new town or village green. Warwickshire County Council (the council) provided the information it held but redacted one email relying on 12(5)(b) of the EIR as it considered that the information was subject to a claim of legal professional privilege (LPP). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is able to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to redact the email. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Warwickshire County Council
15 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) information concerning communications with the Duchy of Lancaster. The MoJ’s response to this request was severely delayed. In so doing, the MoJ breached section 10(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
15 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the minutes of internal and external meetings from 1 December 2015 to 30 December 2016. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, Wolverton Health Centre has failed to provide a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore reminds Wolverton Health Centre of its obligations under the FOIA and requires that it either respond to the request in accordance with the legislation or issue a valid refusal notice under section 17(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0080 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
15 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the housing of offenders released from custody. Colchester Borough Council stated that some of the information requested was not held. With regard to the remainder of the request it stated that it was unable to establish whether it held this information within the cost limit and therefore refused the request under section 12(2) of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities Colchester Borough Council do not hold the stated information and that it is entitled to rely of section 12(2) in relation to the remainder of the request. However it breached section 10 in failing to respond to all elements of the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require Colchester Borough Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12
View Colchester City Council
14 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a painting known as ‘the Arnolfini Portrait’ by Jan van Eyck. The National Gallery (‘the Gallery’) has refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Gallery: breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not comply with section 1(1) promptly and within 20 working days; and is not obliged to comply with the complainant’s request for information as the request is vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require the Gallery to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View National Gallery