14 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Northern Health & Social Care Trust (“the Trust”) in relation to a Serious Adverse Incident (SAI) investigation which was carried out by the Trust. The Trust disclosed information in response to part of the complainant’s request, however it stated that it did not hold some of the requested information, applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to part of the request, and applied section 42(1) of the FOIA to the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied the above sections of the FOIA to the complainant’s request. Therefore the Commissioner orders no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0074 part allowed – closed on 24/10/2018.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 42
View Northern Health and Social Care Trust
14 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested conflict of interest statements associated with the PACE trial, which was concerned with treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome. Queen Mary University of London (‘the University’) says the information is already reasonably accessible to the complainant and therefore exempt from release under section 21(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The University incorrectly applied section 21(1) to the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Release to the complainant the information he requested on 13 June 2017.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Queen Mary University of London
14 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about taxi and private hire driver arrests from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). In a late response, the MPS advised the complainant that to comply with his request would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner finds that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 12, however, it breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to confirm that it holds the requested information within the statutory time limit. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
14 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the citizenship of the former Prime Minister of Australia. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 40(5) correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with the complainant’s request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
13 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but it sought to withhold this on the basis of the following exemptions within FOIA: sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) and 27(2) (international relations); sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (g) section (law enforcement);section 38(1)(b) (health and safety); section 40(2) (personal data); sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (g) section (law enforcement); and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c), (d) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
13 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the telephone numbers of two senior personnel at the Department for Work and Pensions. The Department for Work and Pensions relies on, inter alia, section 40 (2) (personal data) to withhold the requested data. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Work and Pensions correctly relied on section 40 (2) (personal data) to withhold the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0068 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for Work and Pensions
13 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes and all papers of a meeting on immigration held in the early months of 2012 and attended by David Cameron, Steve Hilton and senior civil servants, during which the Government's immigration target was discussed. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request on the basis of section 35(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) FOIA
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
13 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from London Fire Brigade (LFB) information relating to the Grenfell Tower fire. LFB refused the request under the exemption provided by section 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that LFB cited section 31(1)(a) correctly so it was not obliged to disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View London Fire Brigade
13 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) for information about the UK’s contingency plans in respect of queues at the port of Dover in the event of a ‘no deal’ scenario at the end of the Brexit negotiations. DExEU confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but sought to withhold it on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 27(1)(a) to (d) (international relations); 29(1)(a) and (b) (the economy); 31(1)(a to e, g) (law enforcement); and 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy). The Commissioner has concluded that all of the withheld information falls within the scope of the exemption contained at section 35(1)(a) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Exiting the European Union
13 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about The London Highways Alliance Contract (LoHAC). Specifically, he requested information such as the schedule of rates, lump sum arrangements and percentage adjustments (uplifts) for the four regions. TfL disclosed some information but withheld the remainder, citing section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL is correct to rely on section 43 of the FOIA for the non-disclosure of the remaining withheld information. However, she has noted that TfL failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days (and in fact took 12 months to respond to the first request) of receipt. The Commissioner has therefore found TfL in breach of section 10 of the FOIA in this case. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0081 refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View Transport for London
13 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the Kampala amendments to the Statute of Rome. The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) refused the request and cited the exemptions provided by sections 27(1) (international relations), 35(3) (Law Officers’ advice) and 42(2) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO cited these exemptions correctly and so was not obliged to comply with the complainant’s information request. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/2774/2018 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 35; FOI 42
View Attorney General's Office
13 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Liverpool City Council (the council) relating to business (non-residential) property rates data. Whilst the council provided some information, it withheld certain information under section 31(1)(a)-prevention and detection of a crime, of the FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that whilst the council was correct to apply section 31(1)(a), the public interest in the information being disclosed outweighs that in maintaining the exemption in this instance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Liverpool City Council
13 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of notes of meetings between the public authority, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and, copies of correspondence between the public authority and DCMS, in relation to the government’s decision to cease funding the TV licence concession for persons aged 75 and over, and for the BBC to take over the responsibility. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemptions at sections 35(1)(a) and (b), 36(2)(a)(i), 36(2)(b)(i) and(ii), 36(2)(c), 40(2), 42(1) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) as the basis for withholding the information in scope.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View HM Treasury
13 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Norwich City Council (the council) to disclose the legal distance between water supply and foul water pipes and graves. The council responded advising the complainant that it does not hold this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the council did not hold the requested information at the time of the request. Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR therefore applies in this case. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Norwich City Council
13 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Camden (“the Council”) relating to the development of a site at West End Lane, West Hampstead, London. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) and has provided advice and assistance in accordance with regulation 9. However, the Council breached regulation 7(1) by failing to issue a substantive response within 40 working days of receiving the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 7; EIR 9(1)
View Camden Council
12 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking a list of correspondence it had exchanged with the Ministry of Defence about the ‘Policy Review and Feasibility Study into the Resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago’. The FCO has failed to respond to this request and has therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA and, as the request also seeks environmental information, regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5; FOI 10
12 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport HM Treasury (DCMS) seeking communications and minutes of meetings between ministers and the Association of British Bookmakers concerning the review into fixed odds betting terminals. DCMS confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure of the exemption contained at section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
12 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about students who have accessed counselling services. The University of West London (‘the University’) provided a response to the request but did so outside of the 20 working days required by the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The University has now complied with section 1 of the FOIA with regards to the complainant’s request and the Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The University of West London
12 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury (HMT) seeking communications and minutes of meetings between ministers and the Association of British Bookmakers concerning the review into fixed odds betting terminals. HMT confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy), 40(2) (personal data) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View HM Treasury
12 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about students who have accessed counselling services. The University of Southampton (‘the University’) has acknowledged the request but at the date of this notice has not provided a response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it has not complied with section 1(1) 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 8 November 2017.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View University of Southampton
12 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
In two requests, the complainant has requested information broadly associated with access to a particular area of land. Surrey Heath Borough Council (‘the Council’) denies holding any information relevant to either request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR to refuse the requests as it did not hold the requested information when the complainant’s requests were received. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Surrey Heath Borough Council
12 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on security incidents at a DWP building in a three month period along with details of any civil actions taken by DWP. DWP refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 31(3), by virtue of section 31(1)(a) (prevention and detection of crime) and section 38(1)(a) The Commissioner has concluded that section 31(3) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining this exclusion. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Department for Work and Pensions
12 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information generated by litigation involving himself, a Planning Inspector and Suffolk Coastal District Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Suffolk Coastal District Council correctly relied on Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Mid Suffolk District Council
9 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about sanctions at the School. The Governors of Ryde Academy have failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that there was a breach of 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
9 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to her deceased brother, his care and her own involvement with his care. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Lewisham (“the London Borough”) has failed to respond to those elements of the request which fall under the Freedom of Information Act (“the Act”) within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act (“the Act”). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Respond to the request by issuing a substantive response in accordance with the Act.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Lewisham Council
9 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made four requests to DHSC for information relating to an 'efficiency' meeting from June 2015, information relating to four First Tier Tribunal cases, information relating to a meeting between PS(H) and Simon Stevens dated 23 September 2014 and information relating to DHSC Twitter accounts. The DHSC refused to comply with the requests under section 14 FOIA as it considers them to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC correctly applied section 14 FOIA to the requests. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department of Health and Social Care
9 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested documents relating to two specific planning applications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Merton (“the London Borough”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the Regulations”). The London Borough has also failed to carry out an internal review within 40 working days and has therefore also breached Regulation 11(4) of the Regulations.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
Reconsider its response to the request and notify the complainant of the outcome of that reconsideration in accordance with Regulation 11 of the Regulations.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2)
View Merton Council
8 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to bad debts identified by the council. The council has applied section 36(2)(c)(prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40(2)(personal data), section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 43(2)(commercial interests) to the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 36(2)(c) to the information. As such she has not found it necessary to consider the application of section 40(2), section 41 or section 43(2) to the information further. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0062 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View Norfolk County Council
8 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a proposed traffic regulation order. The Commissioner’s decision is that Medway Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR for manifestly unreasonable requests. The Commissioner does not require Medway Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Medway Council
8 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the remuneration received by councillors from outside body appointments (i.e. made by the council) in the last two financial years. The council provided some information and said that it did not hold anything further. The complainant considered that further information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request. She has also decided that the council complied with the requirements of section 1(1) of the Act, and section 17(1) of the Act. However she has decided that the council failed to comply with the requirements of section 10(1) in that it did not provide a copy of all of the information it holds within 20 working days of receiving the request for information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View Windsor and Maidenhead Council
8 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Worcester City Council (“the council”) relating to its attempts to seek a site for Worcester City Football Club to build a stadium in 2016. The council said that all of the information was exempt under section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). This exemption relates to information provided in confidence. The Commissioner asked the council to reconsider the request under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”). The council relied on the exception under regulation 12(5)(e). This exception relates to commercial confidentiality. It said that the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. The Commissioner’s decision is that insufficient evidence was presented to support the use of the exception. The council also identified that some information was not held. The Commissioner has found breaches of regulations 5(1), 5(2), 14(3)(a) and 14(2) of the EIR. She requires the council to provide
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 14(3)(a); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Worcester City Council
8 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information with regards to speed statistics. The council provided the information but the complainant was not satisfied with how long the council took to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is the council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not respond within the required 20 working days following receipt of the request. As the information has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
8 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested surveyors’ reports with regards to a recreational ground. Kirby Muxloe Parish Council (the council) refused the request under both section 14(1) of the FOIA – vexatious request – and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR – manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is for environmental information and that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner has found that the council has breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR as it issued its refusal notice outside the required timeframe. As the refusal notice has now been issued, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0054 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1)
8 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about three named parties from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny holding any related information, citing the exemption at section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0071 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
8 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Office of Rail and Road relating to the obligation on stations/train operators to provide information about the accessibility of intermodal connections. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Office of Rail and Road has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Office of Rail and Road to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0073 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Office of Rail and Road
7 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the trust to disclose information relating to the specialist addiction unit (SAU) services it is contracted to provide to a number of London Boroughs. The trust provided some information but withheld the remainder, citing sections 12 and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 12 of the FOIA applies in this case. However, she has decided that section 43 of the FOIA is not engaged. The Commissioner therefore requires the trust to disclose the information withheld under section 43 of the FOIA to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 43
View East London NHS Foundation Trust
7 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the Environment Agency (EA) to disclose a copy of the Environment Risk Assessment (ERA) for the Redcliffe Bay Petroleum Storage Depot (RBPSD). The EA responded advising the complainant that it does not hold the requested information and cited regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the EA does not hold the requested information and is therefore entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR in this case. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Environment Agency
7 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from NHS Croydon Clinical Commissioning Group (“Croydon CCG”) relating to the departure of a former council officer. The Commissioner’s decision is that Croydon CCG has correctly refused to confirm or deny whether any information is held falling within the scope of the request, under section 40(5) of the FOIA – personal data. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Croydon Clinical Commissioning Group
7 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names of particular computer folders held by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP incorrectly relied upon sections 31(1)(a) and 40(2) to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40(2)
View Department for Work and Pensions
7 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by West Lancashire Borough Council (the council) relating to business (non-residential) property rates data. Whilst the council provided some information, it withheld certain information under section 30(1)(a)-prevention and detection of a crime and section 40(2)-personal information, of the FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that whilst the council was correct to apply section 31(1)(a), the public interest in the information being disclosed outweighs that in maintaining the exemption in this instance. However, the Commissioner has gone on to conclude that the council has correctly applied section 40(2) to information relating to sole traders and partnerships. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the withheld information to the complainant, with the relevant third party personal information redacted.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View West Lancashire Borough Council
6 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of the Service Inquiry report into the deaths of three soldiers in the Brecon Beacons in July 2013 along with a copy of the Non-Statutory Inquiry report. The MOD argued that the request was vexatious because complying with it would place a grossly oppressive burden on it. It therefore refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that the MOD is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request on this basis.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Defence
6 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a freedom of information request to Greenwich London Borough Council for a copy of the Event Management Plan (EMP) for an event operated by the Greenwich International Festival. The Council refused the request under the regulation 12(5)(a) (public safety) and regulation 12(5)(e) commercial confidentiality exceptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(a) has been correctly applied to only some of the information contained within the EMP but that where the exception is engaged the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also found that regulation 12(5)(e) was not engaged and that therefore a significant portion of the EMP should be disclosed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
6 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by the Extremism Analysis Unit relating to the Stop the War Coalition. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request and cited the exemption provided by section 36(3) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 36(3) correctly and so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. However, the Commissioner also finds that the Home Office breached section 17(3) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request promptly.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36
View Home Office
6 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to The Atherstone Hunt’s New Year meet. Warwickshire Police provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder citing sections 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated its application of the exemption at section 31(1)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA was applied appropriately to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Warwickshire Police
6 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information which concerns his long-standing and on-going complaints against Basildon District Council. The Council determined that the complainant’s 6-part request is vexatious and should be refused in reliance on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Basildon District Council has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA and consequently the Council is entitled to refuse to comply with the complainant’s request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Basildon Borough Council
5 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to know the number of complainants who had made sexual abuse allegations about Greville Janner. Leicestershire Police disclosed some information. However, it also withheld some information, citing the exemptions at section 31 (law enforcement) and section 38 (health and safety) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated its application of the exemption at sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (c). The Commissioner’s decision is that Leicestershire Police was entitled to rely on section 31 to withhold the requested information. However, the Commissioner found procedural breaches of sections 1, 10 and 17 of the FOIA in the way Leicestershire Police handled the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31
View Leicestershire Police
5 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked to know whether an individual that he believed to be a paedophile had ever been the subject of police investigation. Merseyside Police refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing the exemption at section 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Merseyside Police was entitled by section 30(3) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0046 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Merseyside Police
5 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of costs incurred in respect of 5 cases from the Police Federation of England and Wales (the “PFEW”). The PFEW initially refused the request citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it revised its position advising that some of the information was not held and that it would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(1) to comply with the remainder of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. She also finds no breach of section 16 (advice and assistance). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
5 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to planning applications. Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service disclosed information. However, the complainant was not satisfied and clarified two remaining outstanding issues. Hampshire and Fire Rescue Service confirmed that it did not hold any recorded information in relation to these two issues.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Fire and Rescue Services is correct to state that it does not hold any information in relation to the two outstanding issues. She therefore considers that it has not breached regulation 5(1) (disclosure of environmental information) of EIR.
The Commissioner does not require HFRS to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service
5 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to judicial conduct inquiries. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information and cited the exemption provided by section 44(2) (statutory prohibitions to disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ cited section 44(2) incorrectly and so it is now required to confirm or deny whether it holds the information requested by the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Ministry of Justice