19 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10 of the FOIA since it failed to provide a substantive response to the requests within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council
19 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the sale of a particular piece of land. London Borough of Barnet (‘the Council’) refused to comply with the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable request). The Commissioner’s decision is that: The request is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b), by reason of being a vexatious request, and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/697/2019 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Barnet Council
19 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested documents associated with a particular land asset. London Borough of Barnet Council (‘the Council’) refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that: the Council is not obliged to comply with the complainant’s request under section 12(1); but that it breached section 16(1) as it rejected considering any advice and assistance it could offer the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/698/2019 PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Barnet Council
19 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information created during the processing of a previous information request that he has made. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council disclosed held information. The complainant contested that further recorded information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no further recorded information is held. However the Council breached section 10 by providing its response outside of the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0047 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
19 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from HM Passport Office, which is part of the Home Office, about its policy for issuing additional passports. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has partly complied with the Act in withholding the guidance policy document “Additional Passports and Frequent Traveller Exemptions”. However she also decided that, in the circumstances of this case, while the public interest favours maintaining the exemption for most of the requested information, it did not outweigh the public interest in disclosing section 1 the Introduction. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose section 1 the Introduction of the Home Office internal guidance policy document “Additional Passports and Frequent Traveller Exemptions”.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31
View Home Office
19 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the prosecution of various parties before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal or the investigation of parties by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to comply with the request on the basis that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit in costs set by section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly applied section 12(1) and found that there is no breach of section 16(1) of the FOIA (duty to provide advice and assistance). She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
19 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a breakdown of non-emergency patient transfers ordered by the Northern Health and Social Services Trust (“the Trust”) from April 2016 to June 2017 inclusive. The complainant requested month-by-month figures of the number of transfers delivered, broken down by service provider. The complainant then requested a monthly breakdown by ambulance service provider of monies paid to private or voluntary ambulance services from 1 April 2016 to 31 June 2017 inclusive. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to provide a response within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Northern Health and Social Care Trust
19 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Ministry of Justice an updated version of the Bailiff Manual. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice 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. The Commissioner requires the Ministry of Justice to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Respond to the complainant’s request dated 11 May 2017 under FOIA. The Ministry of Justice 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: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
19 Feb 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 investigated 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
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 partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specific social services records deriving from a now deceased person. The Lancashire County Council originally refused to provide the requested information under the exemptions provided by sections 36(1)(b), 40(2), and 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council concluded that no relevant information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that no relevant information is likely to be held by the Council. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Lancashire County Council
19 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the BBC and ‘positive discrimination’. The BBC said that the requested information was covered by the derogation and excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall within the scope of 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
15 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a specific inquiry. The Home Office has withheld the information under section 23(1) (security bodies) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has applied section 23(1) of FOIA appropriately. However, she considers that the Home Office has breached section 17(1) (refusal of a request) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 23
View Home Office
15 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 Doncaster Metropolitan Borough 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) 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 Doncaster Council
15 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 Sheffield City Council. The council applied Sections 21, 22, 31(1)(a), 31(1)(d) and 40 to withhold the information. The complainant made a complaint about the application section 31 to the Commissioner. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply the exemptions in section 41 to the information. She has also decided that whilst the council was correct in that sections 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(d) were engaged, the public interest in the disclosure of the information outweighs that in the exemptions being maintained 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. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 41
View Sheffield City Council
15 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 Glamorgan Council. The council applied section 31(1)(a) to the information stating that it would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime to disclose the information. 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 Vale of Glamorgan Council
15 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 of crime as it would provide details which would facilitate criminal activity. It also applied sections 40(2) (personal data) and section 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply the exemptions in section 31(1)(a), 40(2) and section 41.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 40; FOI 41
View Knowsley Council
15 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 Ealing 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. It also applied the exemptions in section 40(2) (personal data) and 21 (information available by other means). The complaint to the Commissioner however only relates to the application of section 31. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 31(1)(a) and section 31(2) 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 Ealing Council
15 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HMRC about statistics for non-EEA nationals in line with an HMRC publication on EEA nationals. HMRC responded setting out that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and accordingly relied on section 12 FOIA to refuse the request. It advised the complainant that in order to refine his request he may wish to focus on a specific area of interest within the HMRC publication. The complainant accepted the application of section 12 and sought guidance from HMRC as to how he might further refine his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC did not provide the complainant with advice and assistance and has therefore breached section 16 FOIA.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide advice and assistance in relation to the request dated 15 November 2016 to enable the complainant to submit a refined request within the cost
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
15 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from a specific department of Belfast Metropolitan College (“BMC”). BMC disclosed the information it holds to the complainant and advised him that it does not hold any further recorded information in relation to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that BMC has disclosed all of the information it holds falling within the scope of the complainant’s request and does not hold any further recorded information. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
15 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between a named individual and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) along with any records of meetings between the parties. The MHRA identified 27 emails containing information relevant to the request but considered that information in them was exempt on the basis of section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has correctly applied the provisions of section 43(2) to withhold information within the emails. However, she finds there is information that the MHRA itself has identified which does not engage the exemption and this should be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose redacted copies of the emails providing the information which does not engage the section 43(2) exemption and is not personal data.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
15 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the cost of the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into manipulation of LIBOR. The SFO refused to disclose this information and cited the exemptions provided by the following sections of the FOIA: 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime), 31(1)(b) (prejudice to the apprehension or prosecution of offenders), 31(1)(c) (prejudice to the administration of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the SFO cited these exemptions correctly and so it was not obliged to disclose this information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Serious Fraud Office
15 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group (NHS Dorset CCG) information regarding the Individual Patient Treatment (IPT) Panel.
The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS Dorset CCG has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in the handling of this request.
The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group
15 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two information requests about Jean Charles de Menezes and Cressida Dick to the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS found the requests to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Metropolitan Police Service
14 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Environment Agency (EA) relating to the management of flood risk, water flows and water abstraction near to his property. The EA refused these requests, citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, on the basis that the requests are vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR in this case. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0051 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b)
View Environment Agency
14 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the University of Bedfordshire (the university) to confirm whether it uses a private company to carry out certain services. If it does, the complainant has asked to know what the services are, when the contract was let, when it is due to expire and when it is likely to be re-tendered. The university refused to disclose this information, citing section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43 of the FOIA does not apply in this case. She therefore requires the university to disclose the requested information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0042 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View University of Bedfordshire
14 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Queen Mary University of London that relates to the number of allocated places and admitted students for specific courses in London and Malta for specified academic years; the number of exemptions/waivers issued in respect of the United Kingdom Clinical Aptitude Test for specified academic years; the list of all grounds of exemptions/waivers for the UKCAT which have been issued; and a copy of the standard/generic notice issued by QMUL giving notice/waiver for the UKCAT. QMUL refused to comply with the request as it considered it to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that QMUL has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Queen Mary University of London
13 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Croydon London Borough Council (“the Council”) for information related to a planning enforcement complaint. The Council has refused the request under the exceptions in regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(b) (Course of justice etc) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that both regulation 12(4)(e) and regulation 12(5)(b) are engaged and the public interest in maintaining each exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View London Borough of Croydon
13 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the wedding of a relative of a member of the Royal Family. Thames Valley Police (TVP) disclosed some of the requested information and refused to confirm or deny whether it held other information, relying on the exemptions provided by sections 23(5) (security bodies), 31(3) (prejudice to law enforcement) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. It also confirmed that it held some of the requested information, but refused to disclose it, citing the exemptions provided by the following sections of the FOIA: 24(1) (national security), 31(1)(a) and (b) (prejudice to prevention or detection of crime and to the apprehension or prosecution of offenders), 38(1)(a) and (b) (endangerment to health and safety). The Commissioner’s decision is that TVP cited section 40(5) to some extent incorrectly, but finds that the remainder of the refusal was correct. In relation to the incorrect citing of section 40(5), TVP is now required to disclose the c
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 40
View Thames Valley Police
13 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the planning, building control, and environmental control files for his neighbour’s adjacent property. During the course of the investigation Mid Suffolk Council released some information from the environmental control file. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities Mid Suffolk Council has provided all the information regarding the requested planning files. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the Mid Suffolk Council is entitled to rely upon the exception for personal data at regulation 13(1) to withhold the remaining information. However Mid Suffolk Council) did not provide the information requested within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. It also failed to issue a refusal notice within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 14(2) of the EIR. As both a response and a refusal notice have now been issued, the Commissioner do
Exemptions cited: EIR 1; EIR 1(1); EIR 13(1); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Mid Suffolk District Council
13 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the lobbying and communication around the decision to use the Devolution Act and suspend the existing involvement of the Boundary Commission in relation to the merger of Taunton Deane Borough Council and West Somerset Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Communities and Local Government has incorrectly applied the exemption for information that relates to the formulation or development of government policy at section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. She requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA in order to ensure compliance with the legislation. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
13 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of students in a particular class that were excluded and reported for bullying. The school has refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 40(2) of the FOIA as its basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the school has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the requested information, and therefore she does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
12 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a development at Pier Point, Sunderland. Sunderland City Council (‘the Council’) released some information but withheld other information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR as it said it was material still in the course of completion. On reconsideration, the Council revised its position, which is now that it does not hold the specific information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that at the time of the request the Council: breached regulation 5(1) and 5(2) as it held information within the scope of the first element of the complainant’s request but has not released it to the complainant within 20 working days; is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) to refuse the second element of the complainant’s request as it did not hold this information; and breached regulation 14(2) because it did not refuse the second element of the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5
View Sunderland City Council
12 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about handling of ‘Serious Incident Requiring Investigation’ telephone calls. NHS England has acknowledged the request but at the date of this notice has not provided a response. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England 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 23 November 2017.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
12 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested recorded information From High Peak Borough Council which concerns a specific piece of land. The information requested by the complainant includes communications between Council staff, Natural England and Derbyshire Wildlife Trust. The Council disclosed information to the complainant under the terms of his request but withheld a small amount of personal data under Regulation 13 of the EIR. The complainant believes that the Council might not have disclosed all of the information it holds. Having investigated this matter, the Commissioner has decided that High Peak Borough Council has, on the balance of probabilities, complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR, and also that it is entitled to withhold the personal data of third parties in reliance on Regulation 13. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to comply with the complainant’s request within the statutory twenty day compliance period.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View High Peak Borough Council
12 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a court case. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and relied on the exemptions provided by sections 32(3) (court records) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s conclusion is that the MoJ cited section 32(3) correctly so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the information requested by the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
12 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of complaints found in favour of the complainant. 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. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
12 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for information relating to a fire that occurred at a site in Staffordshire. The Environment Agency provided the complainant with some information but withheld some information under regulation 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e), 12(5)(f) and 13 EIR. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the application of exceptions to four particular pieces of withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Environment Agency has correctly applied regulation 13 EIR to the fours documents being withheld. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Environment Agency
12 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a visit to Malmo. 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. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
8 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the management structure of Cardiff Council (‘the Council’). The Council provided the information, subject to some names being redacted under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 40(2) to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cardiff Council
8 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two information requests with regards to local charities discussed in Kirby Cane & Ellingham Parish Council’s (the council) meeting minutes. The council refused the requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered it to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) of the FOIA is engaged to this 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 14
8 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the costs of Aberystwyth bandstand. The Council withheld the information requested under sections 41 and 43(2) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council withdrew reliance on section 41 but maintained the information was exempt under section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly applied section 43(2) to some of the withheld information. However, the Commissioner considers that some information relating to one part of the request has been appropriately withheld under section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information that falls within the scope of parts 1 and 3 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Ceredigion County Council
8 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a specific property. Cardiff Council (‘the Council’) applied regulation 13(1) to the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council sought to rely on regulation 13(5) to refuse to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 13(5) to the request. However, the Council failed to issue a valid refusal notice within 20 working days and breached regulation 14 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 14
View Cardiff Council
8 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Suffolk County Council on the proposal to build a bypass in Sudbury. The information requested included correspondence with consultants, government departments and other parties on the bypass as well as a copy of the Business Plan. The Council provided information in response to the request but the complainant considered further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on balance, the Council has complied with the request and fulfilled its obligations under the EIR by providing the information within the scope of the request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Suffolk County Council
8 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning visits made by the New Forest District Council’s Environmental Health officers to his home and those to an adjacent property. The complainant seeks photographs, videos, reports and communications relating to the sewerage system which runs under his garden. The Commissioner’s decision is that New Forest District Council has contravened the Regulation 5(1) and Regulation 14 of the EIR for failing to refuse the complainant’s request in reliance on Regulation 5(3).
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5(3)
View New Forest District Council
8 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Gateshead Council on pre-application advice requests relating to sites within the Metrogreen area since the publication of the Metrogreen Topic Paper in July 2012. The Commissioner’s decision is that Gateshead Council has correctly applied the exception where disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of proceedings at regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Gateshead Council
8 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted two requests to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking lists of correspondence exchanged between it and two other public authorities about the Policy Review and Feasibility Study into the Resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago. The FCO refused both requests on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The complainant complained to the Commissioner about the FCO’s failure to provide him with any advice and assistance to allow him to submit refined requests. The Commissioner has concluded that no advice and assistance was provided and therefore the FCO breached regulation 9(1) of the EIR and also section 16(1) of FOIA as part of the requested information also fell under that access regime. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, advice and assistance has been provided by the complainant and therefore no steps are required by the FCO as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 9; FOI 16
8 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information about the activities and death of British citizen Helen Smith in Saudi Arabia in May 1979 that covered the period January to 1981 to June 1981. The FCO initially sought to refuse to disclose the request on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations), section 38(1)(a) (health and safety), section 40 (personal data) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The FCO subsequently 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 FCO is entitled to refuse the request on this basis. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
8 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the council’s finances and the costs of the former chief executive leaving her role at the council. The council claimed the exemptions in section 21 (information available by other means), section 41 (information provided in confidence), and section 40(2) (third party personal data). During the Commissioner's investigation it withdrew its reliance upon section 41 but continued to rely upon section 40(5)(b)(i) to withhold some information. It also withdrew its reliance upon section 21. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northallerton Town Council has correctly applied section 40(2) to the information falling within parts 1, 2 of the request. It has also correctly applied section 40(5)(b)(i) to part 5 of the request. The council was also correct to apply section 40(2) to part 3 of the request however the Commissioner has decided that the council should disclose a salary band of £5000 within which the salary of the former chief execut
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
7 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to reports submitted by health providers to NHS England. The Commissioner’s decision is that Herts Valley Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) does not hold the information requested. The Commissioner does not require the CCG to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1