5 Mar 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of Kent Police’s guidance on dealing with paedophile vigilante groups. Kent Police refused to disclose the requested information on the grounds that it was exempt under section 31 (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police was entitled to rely upon section 31 to withhold the information. However, she found that it breached section 10 by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31
View Kent Police
5 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report into the escape from custody in the 1980s of someone he believes was a police informant. West Yorkshire 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 West Yorkshire Police was entitled by section 30(3) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View West Yorkshire Police
2 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to the Grenfell Tower fire, including correspondence between the Royal Borough and the Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation; correspondence between the then Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council and internal correspondence within the Royal Borough’s press office. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough has failed to issue a substantive response within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act and, to the extent that the requested information is environmental, Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Respond to the request, by providing a substantive response in accordance with the Act and, or to the extent that the requested information is environmental, provide a substantive response in accordance with the Regulations.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 10
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
2 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding Grenfell Tower, including correspondence between named councillors and a contractor, the number of fire safety complaints received in the previous 4 years and the type of cladding approved in a particular planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (“the Royal Borough”) has breached section 10(3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) and, or to the extent that the requested information is environmental, Regulation 7(1) of the Environmental Information Regulations by respectively failing to issue a response within a reasonable timeframe or 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
Respond to the request, by providing a substantive response in accordance with the Act and, or to the extent that the requested information is environmental, provide a substantive response in
Exemptions cited: EIR 7(1); FOI 10
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
2 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about Grenfell Tower including fire risk assessments, copies of invoices, correspondence with a contractor, details of certain council employees and copies of oversight policies. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea has failed to issue a substantive response within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act and, to the extent that the requested information is environmental, Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Respond to the request, by providing a substantive response in accordance with the Act and, or to the extent that the requested information is environmental, provide a substantive response in accordance with the Regulations.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 10
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
2 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on Bramley House, minutes of the Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (“KCTMO”) board, external consultants’ reports and confirmation of whether a named individual is still employed by the TMO. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea has failed to issue a substantive response within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act and, to the extent that the requested information is environmental, Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Respond to the request, by providing a substantive response in accordance with the Act and, or to the extent that the requested information is environmental, provide a substantive response in accordance with the Regulations.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 10
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
2 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of all emails sent by then Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council, within a specific timeframe, which include the word “Grenfell”. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea has failed to issue a substantive response within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act and, to the extent that the requested information is environmental, Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Respond to the request, by providing a substantive in accordance with the Act and, or to the extent that the requested information is environmental, provide a substantive response in accordance with the Regulations.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 10
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
2 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding Grenfell Tower including minutes of fire safety meetings, costs of refurbishments, consideration of sprinkler systems and details of previous fire incidents in the building. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (“the Royal Borough”) has breached section 10(3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) and, or to the extent that the requested information is environmental, Regulation 7(1) of the Environmental Information Regulations by respectively failing to issue a response within a reasonable timeframe or 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
Respond to the request, by providing a substantive response in accordance with the Act and, or to the extent that the requested information is environmental, provide a substantive response in accordance with the Regulations.
Exemptions cited: EIR 7(1); FOI 10
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
2 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in relation to Grenfell Tower and other Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (“KCTMO”) properties, including invoices for refurbishment, correspondence with contractors and oversight protocols. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea has failed to issue a substantive response within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act and, to the extent that the requested information is environmental, Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Respond to the request, by providing a substantive response in accordance with the Act and, or to the extent that the requested information is environmental, provide a substantive response in accordance with the Regulations.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 10
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
1 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the operation of a Pro Laser IIII device from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to confirm that it holds the requested information within the statutory time limit. 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
1 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of two Fire Risk Assessments carried out at a specific address. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Newham (“the London Borough”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and thus breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) As a response has now been issued, the Commissioner does not require the London Borough to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Newham Council
1 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a Privacy Impact Assessment from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to confirm that it holds the requested information within the statutory time limit. As it has now done so, she does not require it to take any action as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
1 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to police funding. North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner (the PCC) refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The decision of the Commissioner is that the request was vexatious, meaning section 14(1) was cited correctly and the PCC was not obliged to comply with it.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
1 Mar 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to how Dicconson Group Practice (DGP) handle complaints about racism. DGP stated that it does not have a separate policy for complaints about racism. DGP provided the complainant with a copy of its generic complaints policy. The complainant is concerned that DGP has not complied with section 1(1), section 10(1) and section 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DGP has complied with its obligations under section 1(1), section 10(1) and section 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
1 Mar 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of test videos showing the use of Talon equipment from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). To date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS has breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it has failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. She requires the MPS to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
28 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the analysis and subsequent conclusions relating to land supply for development. Babergh District Council refused to comply with the requests as it considered them manifestly unreasonable on vexatious grounds under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0065 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Babergh District Council
27 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to its consultation on proposals to reform fees for grants of probate. The MoJ denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ fulfilled its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA by stating that this information is not held. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
27 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to noise complaints made about a public house in Ryton. The council refused to provide the information, relying on the exemption under section 30 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). The Commissioner considered that the request should be handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”). The council relied on the exceptions under regulation 12(5)(b), regulation 12(4)(e) and 13(1) of the EIR. The council said that the public interest did not favour disclosure. The Commissioner was satisfied that the information should be withheld under regulation 13(1) of the EIR. She does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Gateshead Council
27 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of specific communications relating to noise emissions from a gun club. Mid Devon District Council initially withheld the requested information under the exception provided by regulation 12(4)(e), but subsequently confirmed during the Commissioner’s investigation that the information should have been withheld under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b), but breached regulation 5(2) by responding outside of the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(2)
View Mid Devon District Council
27 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a Financial Viability Assessment from the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham. The London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham has withheld the Financial Viability Assessment under Regulations 12(4)(d), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham has not successfully engaged Regulations 12(4)(d), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the Financial Viability Assessment requested by the complainant on 4 August 2016.The public authority must take this step 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: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
27 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham the Financial Viability Assessment it obtained in relation to the development of Five Star Car Wash, 10B Shepherd’s Bush Road, London W6 7PJ. The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has withheld the requested information under Regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has not correctly applied Regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner also finds that the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has breached Regulations 5 and 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the Financial Viability Assessment commissioned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham requested by the complainant on 16 October 2016. The public authority must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
27 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a viability assessment relating to a proposed development. Forest of Dean District Council withheld the request information under the exception for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Forest of Dean District Council has failed to demonstrate that the exception in regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Forest of Dean District Council
27 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the disclosure of a leaked document (the Section 166 Report). The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
26 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of prisoner transfers to a specified prison over a two year period, broken down by month. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 40(2), the exemption for personal information, of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to refuse this request. She does not require the MOJ to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
23 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of the Financial Model Review in relation to the Sutton Decentralised Energy Network. The London Borough of Sutton Council refused the request on the basis of the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that is that the Council has incorrectly applied regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR in this case. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the withheld information to which regulation 12(5)(e) had been applied. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/9964 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View London Borough of Sutton
22 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked Colchester Borough Council for recorded information related to planning applications 150239 and 160868. The Council provided the complainant with some information falling with the scope of his request but withheld other information in reliance of a number of exceptions provided by Regulation 12 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Colchester Borough Council has correctly applied the exception to disclosure provided by Regulations 12(4)(e), 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Colchester City Council
22 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a whistleblowing report to Middlesbrough Council who undertook an investigation in response. The complainant has requested copies of information pertaining to the investigation and its outcome. The council withheld the requested information citing the Freedom of Information Act, specifically sections: 40(2) – Legal and Professional Privilege; 41 - Information Provided in Confidence; and 31(2) - Law Enforcement (for the purpose of protecting charities). The Commissioner’s decision is that Middlesbrough Council has correctly withheld the requested information under section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner does not require Middlesbrough Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Middlesbrough Council
22 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to the Rotherham Development Plan. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the council) provided web links to the information it holds. The complainant did not consider these links provided the information sought, whilst the council states that it does not hold any other information other than what it has provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council holds no further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
22 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for copies of communications and minutes of meetings between the Chief Executive of the public authority and the Chief Executive of the Government Digital Service in relation to a recently introduced identity authentication service known as Verify. The public authority withheld the information held on the basis of the exemptions at section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
22 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a contract between East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Arvato Government Services (ERYC) Ltd. East Riding of Yorkshire Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemptions for personal data (section 40(2)) and commercial interests (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that East Riding of Yorkshire Council failed to comply with the duty to confirm or deny within the statutory time limit therefore breaching section 1(1)(a) and section 10(1) and has failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) of the FOIA is engaged, thus also breaching section 1(1)(b).
The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose Schedule 15 of the Guarantee and Schedule 28 of the Joint Venture Agreement.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 1(1)(b); FOI 10; FOI 43
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
22 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Vale of Glamorgan Council concerning its sale of Haydock House, Holton Road, Barry. The Council has refused to disclose the requested information in reliance of Regulations 12(5)(e) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Vale of Glamorgan Council has correctly applied Regulations 12(5)(e), 13 and 12(5)(b) to the information it is withholding from the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13
View Vale of Glamorgan Council
22 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the tribunal/judge’s handwritten notes in relation to his employment tribunal hearing. The Ministry of Justice explained that it considered that the requested information was the complainant’s own personal data and that it was dealing with it under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Ministry of Justice did not explain which whether it held the information, the exemption it was relying on and why.
The Commissioner considers that Ministry of Justice has breached section 17(1) (refusal of a request) of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Ministry of Justice to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Issue a fresh response to the complainant, confirming whether it holds the information or is neither confirming nor denying whether it holds it, the exemption it is relying on and why.
The Ministry of Justice must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Ministry of Justice
21 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between a senior Welsh Government official and the then Minister for Housing, Regeneration and Heritage within specified periods. The Welsh Government provided the complainant with five documents, but the complainant was of the view that the Welsh Government had refused to provide him with all the relevant information. The Welsh Government also cited section 12 (appropriate limit).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has not satisfied her that it is entitled to rely on section 12 in this case. The Commissioner requires the public authority to conduct a fresh search for the requested information and issue a response accordingly. If the public authority wishes to rely on section 12 it must explain to the complainant why this is the case. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0056 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Welsh Government
21 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the information in an email chain relating to Surrey Council Council’s Home to School Transport policy. The Council disclosed the first email in this chain but considered the remaining information was exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) of the FOIA as it attracted legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 42(1) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Surrey County Council
21 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) asking it to confirm whether, as per press reports, SAS troops and other military personnel were deployed undercover on the UK’s streets. The MOD refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 23(5) (security bodies), 24(2) (national security) and 26(3) (defence). The Commissioner is satisfied that the MOD is entitled to rely on sections 23(5) and 24(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Ministry of Defence
20 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a complete and up-to-date list of all business (non-residential) property rates data held by the council. The council disclosed the majority of the information but applied section 31(1)(a) to information on whether properties were occupied or not. It argued that disclosing this information would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime as it would provide details which would facilitate criminal activity. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 31(1)(a) to the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the information to the complainant
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Camden Council
20 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a series of correspondence, the complainant requested information in relation to a claim for loss of earnings. By the date of this notice, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has yet to provide a substantive response to some aspects of his requests for information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) (general right of access and time for compliance respectively) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a response to the requests detailed in paragraph 11 below in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
20 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the minutes of meetings of the Trial Steering Committee and Trial Management Group of the PACE trial. The trial was concerned with treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome. The Queen Mary University of London (the university) withheld the information under section 36 – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that university is entitled to rely on the exemptions provided by section 36 in respect of information identifying individuals and the contribution of the a body representing patients. Section 36 cannot be relied on in respect of the remaining information. However some of that remaining information is exempt by virtue of section 40(2) – personal information. A short confidential annexe has been produced to identify the information which may be withheld. This will be provided exclusively to the university. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the minutes apart from that information which is identif
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40(2)
View Queen Mary University of London
20 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to the creation of specific posts and associated costs. West Sussex County Council (the council) provided the information it held. The complainant considered that the council held more than what it provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that no further information is held by the council. She also found that the council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA due to the time it took to respond to the request. As the council has now provided its response, the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0059 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View West Sussex County Council
20 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a complete and up-to-date list of all business (non-residential) property rates data held by Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Council. The council applied section 31(1)(a) stating that it would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime to disclose the information because it would provide details which would facilitate those wishing to commit certain types of crime in vacant properties. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply section 31(1)(a) to the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the information to the complainant
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Kingston upon Thames Council
20 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a complete and up-to-date list of all business (non-residential) property rates data held by Greenwich Council. The council applied section 31(1)(a) to the information stating that it would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 31(1)(a) or section 38(1)(b) to the information as the public interest in the disclosure of the information outweighs that in the exemptions being maintained. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the information to the complainant
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 38
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
20 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
On 28 April 2017 the complainant made a request concerning the Council’s planning compliance with National Grid defined safety protocols. The Council responded to the request on 14 June 2017 with some information and issued a refusal notice for the remainder. On 1st December 2017 the complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the response and after receiving no reply from the Council, on 8 January 2018 formally requested a review. The complainant requested that the Commissioner issue a decision notice on the matter as he believed that the Council had breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to complete a review of its response within 40 working days. However, regulation 11(2) requires an applicant requesting information under EIR to contact the public authority within 40 working days of believing that the request has not been complied with. As 6 months has elapsed between the Council’s response and the complainant’s request for a review, the Commissioner cannot consider the
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4)
View Carmarthenshire County Council
20 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to BBC’s Tigrinya service. The BBC refused to provide the requested information at question one citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The BBC applied the derogation to question four of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information at question one and correctly applied the derogation to question four. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0032 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View BBC
20 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of all Home Office spending of more than £25,000. The Home Office refused to disclose this information and cited the exemption provided by section 22(1) (information intended for future publication) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited this exemption incorrectly and it is now required to disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Home Office
19 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) information relating to cases involving joint enterprise convictions between the years 2005 and 2015. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to the requested information and has also provided the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with section 16(1) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Ministry of Justice
19 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a consultation associated with a draft Cultural Strategy. Brent Council (‘the Council’) released relevant information and it has confirmed to the Commissioner that it has released all the relevant information that it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that Brent Council has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA and has released to the complainant all the information it holds that falls within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Brent
19 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about communications and reports. The University of Cambridge (the University) 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 University is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) but the University breached section 16 as it did not offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View The University of Cambridge
19 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Northamptonshire Police and a named individual. Northamptonshire Police neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing section 40(5) of the FOIA (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that Northamptonshire 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 requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Northamptonshire Police
19 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about safety planning in a public swimming pool. Elmbridge Borough Council refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1). 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
View Elmbridge Borough Council
19 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information containing 114 questions. Full details of the request and OISC supporting evidence is contained in a confidential annex which has not been made available to the public. The Commissioner’s decision is that Office of the Immigrations Services Commissioner (OISC) has correctly applied section 14(1) (vexatious requests) to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner