6 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made an information request to Transport for London (TfL) for details of the Transforming Fiveways, Croydon Highway Improvement Scheme. TfL acknowledged the request but failed to provide a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Transport for London
6 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a single-language policy. The Department of Agriculture, the Environment and Rural Affairs refused to disclose the requested information in reliance on the exemption at section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged with regard to the information held, but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland)
6 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a single-language policy. The Department for Agriculture, the Environment and Rural Affairs refused to disclose the requested information in reliance on the exemption at section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged with regard to the information held, but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland)
6 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the audits carried out by or on behalf of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) in the first three months of 2017 of members of either the British Parking Association (BPA) or of the International Parking Community (IPC or equivalent). The DVLA provided some information but refused to disclose the remainder citing section 31(2)(a) – (c) by virtue of section 31(1)(g) and section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA has incorrectly relied on sections 31(2)(a) – (c) by virtue of section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA. However, the DVLA has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the personal data of third parties referenced throughout the withheld information. The Commissioner therefore requires the DVLA to disclose the withheld information to the complainant, with the personal data of third parties redacted. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0050 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
6 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of information exchanged in correspondence between the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and two nursing homes about which he had submitted a complaint. The NMC stated that the information, if held, would engage either section 40 or 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner's decision is that the NMC has incorrectly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the request. However, the Commissioner has decided that under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA, the NMC is not obliged to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information as to do so would release the personal data of third party individuals. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0023 allowed
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View NMC
5 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested data relating to ‘lessons learned’ within the Ministry of Justice (“the MOJ”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to the request, and has also provided the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
5 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on PALS department policies. The Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) confirmed that they did not hold any further information. The complainant considered that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner found that the Trust failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days and therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust
5 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) information concerning its considered usage of the site Audrey Street Depot E2 8QH for educational purposes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. Therefore, she does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Hackney
5 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information (ICO) associated with what he has categorised as “accidental decision notices”. The Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’) refused to comply with the requests under section 12(1) of the FOIA confirming that to do so would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that: under section 12(1) the ICO is not obliged to comply with the complainant’s requests; and that the ICO complied with section 16(1) of the FOIA as it offered the complainant adequate advice and assistance. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/2320/2019 PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Information Commissioner
5 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the contract between Kier Highways Ltd and Transport for London (TfL). TfL released some of the requested information but withheld some under section 43(2) of the FOIA (prejudice to commercial interests). During the Commissioner’s investigation TfL identified that it holds further relevant information which it had not released to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The information TfL has withheld under section 43(2) is exempt from disclosure under this exemption and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require TfL to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Transport for London
5 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of an audit report. The London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) refused the request under section 36(2)(b) and (c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 36(2)(b) and (c) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View London Borough of Lambeth
5 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about alleged criminal offences arising from a third party’s employment tribunal. Northumbria Police refused to provide the requested information, initially citing section 21 of FOIA, (information reasonably accessible by other means) for part one of the request and 30(2)(a)(i), (criminal investigations and proceedings) for the second part of the request. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, Northumbria Police confirmed it no longer wished to rely on section 30(2)(a)(i) in respect of part two of the request, instead citing section 30(1)(a) of FOIA. The complainant is only concerned with the information withheld under section 30(1)(a). Having considered its application of section 30(1)(a), the Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria Police was entitled to rely on that exemption to withhold the requested information. However, by relying on this exemption which it had not mentioned at or before the internal review, North
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Northumbria Police
5 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to reports health care providers submit to NHS England as well as systems in place on December 2014. The Commissioner’s decision is that Direct Local Health (DLH) has not provided a response to the complainant within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with a written response to his request. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS Direct National Health Service Trust
5 Feb 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Sheffield City Council (‘the Council’) on particular performance measures. The Council says that the information the complainant has requested is exempt from release under section 22(1) (information intended for future publication). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA with regards to the second part of the complainant’s request as it did not confirm that it does not hold this information. The Council breached section 10(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. Section 22(1) is not engaged with respect to the information that has been withheld under this exemption. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step: Release to the complainant the information it has withheld under section 22(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 22
View Sheffield City Council
5 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In six requests, the complainant has requested information broadly about Balfron Tower, a residential tower block in the district of Tower Hamlets. London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council (‘the Council’) indicated that it does not hold information within the scope of two of the requests, released information in response to another and refused to comply with other of the requests under section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost exceeds the appropriate limit). During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council confirmed that its position now is that it is not obliged to comply with the requests because they are vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s requests are vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA and the Council is not obliged to comply with them. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
5 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Lambeth (LBL) on 4 December 2016 about the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBL has breached section 10 FOIA, has breached section 16 FOIA and is not entitled to rely on section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the request dated 4 December 2016 which does not rely on section 12. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View London Borough of Lambeth
2 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information from Ealing Council regarding an application and a hearing for a Sexual Entertainment Venue (SEV) licence and Ealing Council’s subsequent decision to rehear it at a later date. Ealing Council applied sections 40(2) (personal information) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA to entirety of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ealing Council has correctly applied section 42(1) to the entirety of the requested information and does not require any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0052 Refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Ealing Council
1 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the introduction of a performance management system within HMRC.
The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has breached section 10(1) of the Act by failing to respond to the complainant within 20 working days, and therefore also breached section 1(1)(a) by neither confirming nor denying whether it holds the requested information within the statutory timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
1 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the Mayor of London’s office and David Beckham or his management company between January 2011 and March 2015. The Greater London Authority identified four letters which it provided to the complainant but stated no further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GLA does not hold any further information within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Greater London Authority
1 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of a radio drama produced during the period 2007 to 2009, which he understood to have an anti-extremism message. The Home Office refused to provide any of the requested information, initially citing the exemptions in sections 24(1), national security, and 43(2), commercial interests. It maintained that the public interest for both exemptions favoured withholding the requested information. It later dropped its reliance on section 43(2) and cited section 38(1), health and safety, for parts of the requested information, whilst maintaining that section 24(1) applies to the information requested in its entirety. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 24(1) to refuse to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Home Office
1 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to 'Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial'. QMUL confirmed that the requested information was not held under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the information requested in parts 2-7 of the request was held at the time of the request and QMUL breached section 1(1)(b) FOIA as the information held was not provided. The Commissioner is however unable to order any steps to be taken in this case as whilst the information was held at the time the request was made, it can no longer be said to be held for the purpose of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Queen Mary University of London
1 Feb 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the pattern and value of land ownership for individuals in England and Wales. Her Majesty’s Land Registry (HMLR) has stated that the requested information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMLR has misinterpreted the complainant’s request. The Commissioner further finds on the balance of probabilities that HMLR does hold information of the description set out in the request. The Commissioner requires HMLR to issues a fresh response to the request, either by disclosing information of the description specified or by refusing the request in accordance with section 17 FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View HM Land Registry
1 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the cost of renting property from the council prior to a transfer of housing stock to a housing association by the council in 2000. The council said that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the council was correct to say that it does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Coventry City Council
1 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the death of Sandra Rivett and the subsequent disappearance of Lord Lucan from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS confirmed that it holds information but found it to be exempt from disclosure under sections 30(1)(investigations and proceedings) and 40(2)(personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 30(1) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Metropolitan Police Service
1 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Suffolk Constabulary relating to suspects who have been wanted by Suffolk Constabulary for the longest period of time and the number of outstanding arrest warrants. Suffolk Constabulary confirmed it held some of the requested information. It provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 44(1) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated Suffolk Constabulary’s application of section 40(2) to the withheld names of the wanted persons and has concluded that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of that exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Suffolk Constabulary
1 Feb 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Norfolk Constabulary relating to suspects who have been wanted by Norfolk Constabulary for the longest period of time and the number of outstanding arrest warrants. Norfolk Constabulary confirmed it held some of the requested information. It provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 44(1) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated Norfolk Constabulary’s application of section 40(2) to the withheld names of the wanted persons and has concluded that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of that exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Norfolk Constabulary
30 Jan 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by Wealden District Council relating to its five year housing land supply and a meeting that took place on 26 October 2015. The council initially withheld information under section 42 of the FOIA (legal professional privilege). After reconsideration of the request under the EIR, the council identified additional information relevant to the request, some of which it then supplied to the complainant. The council applied regulation 13 -personal data, regulation 12(4)(e)-internal communications, and regulation 12(5)(b)-course of justice, to the remaining information. After further intervention by the Commissioner, the council then supplied the complainant with information that had been withheld under regulation 13. The Commissioner is satisfied that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) and 12 (5)(b) with regards to the remaining withheld information. However, she has found the council to have breached regulations 14(1) and 14(2)
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13; EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(2)
View Wealden District Council
30 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the budget for the London Borough of Lambeth Council’s scheme to build a new town hall as well as details of housing acquisitions made by the developer. The Council provided some information and explanations to the complainant but he was concerned the Council had not provided the specific budget information asked for as well as any updates to the budget that had been made. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided sufficient information to satisfy the request and does not hold any further information within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Lambeth
30 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between Kent County Council and the governing body of the Simon Langton Girls Grammar School which specifically references the Inquiry/Disciplinary Report known as 'The Craig Enquiry' and any other memo/correspondence produced by the person conducting that investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent County Council has correctly applied the exemptions at sections 40(2), 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Kent County Council
30 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an independent investigation report by Edif ERA (a trading name of ERA Technology Ltd) and the review carried out by a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) specialist electrical inspector in relation to the cause of an accident involving the complainant. HSE withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 41 of the FOIA (information provided in confidence) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that HSE has correctly applied section 41 of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Health and Safety Executive
30 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the agreement with the European Union on funding. The BBC confirmed that they did not hold the information. The complainant considered that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0040 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
30 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about anti-social behaviour and associated actions for the Measborough Dyke area in South Yorkshire. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council refused the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA – cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit, as the Council had received numerous similar requests from various individuals and believed the requesters to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign (section 12(4)(b) of the FOIA).
The Commissioner’s decision is that Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council has correctly applied section 12(1) and section 12(4)(b) to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Barnsley Council
30 Jan 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the training undertaken, and powers held, by council officers. Chorley Borough Council disclosed some information, and withheld some under the exemption provided by section 40(2). The complainant disputed the Council’s application of section 40(2), and contested that further recorded information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2), and 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View Chorley Borough Council
30 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for information on honours nominations concerning David Beckham. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information falling within the first part of the request but sought to withhold this on the basis of section 37(1)(b) (honours) and section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. In relation to the second and third parts of the request the Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held information on the basis of section 37(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office can rely on section 37(1)(a) and section 37(2) in the manner in which it has.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
30 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant has requested information relating to ‘lessons learned’ from Wiltshire Council (“the Council”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly refused the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA – Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit, and has also provided the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Wiltshire Council
30 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Penalty Charge Notices issued for a specific road. Isle of Wight 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Isle of Wight Council
29 Jan 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a request to Norwich Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) the complainant has requested information about mental health assessments for individuals detained by the police. The CCG has released information within the scope of part 1 of the request and confirmed it does not hold information within the scope of parts 2, 3 and 4. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the CCG has released all the relevant information it holds and holds no further information. The CCG has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not confirm it held relevant information and release it to the complainant within 20 working days of receiving her request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0035 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
29 Jan 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of times persons making an application for Planning Permission from the Hartlepool Borough Council (“the Council”) had declared a connection to officers or elected Councillors of the Borough and for the Council’s procedure when such an event occurs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to provide a response within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of FOIA. As a response has now been issued, the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Hartlepool Council
29 Jan 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the prescribing of Dexamethasone and Cyclophosphamide. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cassio Surgery (the surgery) has not provided a response to the complainant within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with a written response to his request. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
29 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked the Ministry of Justice to confirm the existence of named court proceedings and its public records for those proceedings. The Ministry of Justice neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, relying on section 32(3) FOIA (court records, etc). The Commissioner investigated the Ministry of Justice’s application of section 32(3) FOIA and decided that the Ministry was entitled to rely on that exemption to neither confirm nor deny holding the information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
29 Jan 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the prescribing of Dexamethasone and Cyclophosphamide. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cassio Surgery (the surgery) has not provided a response to the complainant within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with a written response to his request. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
29 Jan 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the College of Policing (‘COP’) relating to complaints, grievances and whistleblowing. COP refused to comply with the request as it said that to confirm or deny whether or not it holds any information would exceed the cost limit at section 12(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that COP was correct to apply section 12(2) of FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. It also complied with its duty under section 16 FOIA to provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance. However, by failing to issue its refusal notice within the statutory time limit of 20 working days, COP breached section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 17
View College of Policing
29 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to ‘lessons learned’ within specific areas of the Ministry of Defence (“the MOD”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to aggregate the requests under section 12(4) and has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the requests. The MOD has also provided the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Defence
25 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)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 City of London (COL). 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 because it would provide details which would facilitate the commission of fraud against the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 31(1)(a) to the information as the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0031 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View City of London Corporation
25 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about credit balances on business rate accounts held by London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council (‘the Council’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has appropriately applied section 31(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
25 Jan 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 Westminster Council under the FOI Act (‘the Act’). The council applied section 31(1)(a) of the Act to the information stating that it would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime to disclose the information because it would provide details which would facilitate the commission of fraud against the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 31(1)(a) of the Act was engaged however the public interest in the disclosure of the information outweighs that in the exemption being maintained. The council was therefore not correct to withhold the information under section 31(1)(a). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: To disclose the information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0033 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Westminster Council
24 Jan 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a fixed penalty notice served on him. Hampshire Police explained that it was neither confirming nor denying whether it held the requested information by virtue of section 40(5)(a) (an applicant’s personal information) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Police has applied section 40(5)(a) of FOIA appropriately. However, she considers that it has breached sections 10(1) (time for compliance) and 17 (refusal of a request) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require Hampshire Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
23 Jan 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the PHSO to disclose two letters held on his complaint file. The PHSO refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 40 and 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. For section 44 (1)(a) of the FOIA the PHSO cited the statutory prohibition on disclosure created by the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO is entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken in this case
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 44
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
23 Jan 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to know if the university uses a private company to take photographs at graduation ceremonies, if it does when the current contract is due to expire and when the university is likely to re-tender. The university confirmed that it does use a private company for these services but refused to confirm when the current contract is due to expire and when the university is likely to re-tender, citing section 43 and 22 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 43 and 22 of the FOIA do not apply in this case. The Commissioner therefore requires the university to disclose the remaining withheld information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0029 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 43
View University of Bedfordshire
23 Jan 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council about studies and visits that have been conducted for the benefit of adult social care and wellbeing and safeguarding at Bollingbroke House Residential Care Home. The Commissioner’s decision is that Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) breached section 10(1) of the FOIA (time for compliance) in the handling of this request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Barnsley Council