15 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information collected by East Lindsey District Council from caravan owners for the purpose of allowing the Council to develop a caravan licensing regime. The Council provided the complainant with a spreadsheet containing some of the information he had asked for. The Council withheld certain classes of information in reliance on section 40(2) of the FOIA because it considered the withheld information to be personal data and its disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Lindsey District Council has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the information has withheld from the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View East Lindsey District Council
15 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) information in regards to Mark Harden, Chief Executive (CEO).The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the Council has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Knowsley Council
15 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) about a named individual in connection with his possible employment during a specified timeframe. The MOJ refused to provide the requested information on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA, although it released some related information, outside of FOIA, on a discretional basis. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA in relation to this request. However, by failing to issue its refusal notice within the statutory 20 working days’ timescale, the MOJ breached section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
15 Jan 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office (JCIO), which operates within the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), asking whether they had received complaints against a named District Judge, the nature of those complaints (if any) and whether the complaints received (if any) were upheld. The MoJ refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held citing sections 40(5) (personal information) and 44 (2) prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the MOJ’s application of section 44(2). Her decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied that exemption on the basis that the confirmation or denial was prohibited by section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA). The Commissioner finds, however, that in failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory timescale the MoJ breached section 10(1) of FOIA. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 44
View Ministry of Justice
15 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information which relates to the number of complaints recorded by Mid Sussex District Council made about a named councillor. The Commissioner has decided that Mid Sussex District Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA by providing the complainant with details of the recorded information it holds relevant to his request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Mid Sussex District Council
15 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) information relating to employment tribunal claims. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the Council has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Dudley Council
15 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In four requests, the complainant requested particular communications and documents. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) appeared to aggregate the requests, refusing to comply with them as to do so would exceed the appropriate cost/time limit provided at section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that FOS: is correct to aggregate the requests and was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA, and offered the complainant adequate advice and assistance under section 16(1). The Commissioner does not require FOS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
15 Jan 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Norwich Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) a functioning version of a particular spreadsheet. The CCG has withheld the information under section 43(1) of the FOIA (trade secrets) and 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that: the CCG can be said to hold the requested information in line with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA; and that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2), with the public interest favouring maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeals EA/2018/0015 and NJ/2018/0007 no right of appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
11 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FoS) for details of its response to two consultations from the Financial Conduct Authority. The FoS refused the request under the exemptions in section 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs etc.). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FoS correctly applied the section 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) exemptions and that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
11 Jan 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an audio recording of the Holt Town Council meeting held on 10 April 2017. The Commissioner’s decision is that Holt Town Council has incorrectly cited the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA and the exemption for commercial interests at section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the audio recording with the item on ‘Personnel Matters’ redacted to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
11 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) relating to their involvement in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Election Petition Judgment of 2015. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the CPS clarified the amount of information it held within the scope of the request. It provided some information within the scope of those parts of the request that comprised requests for information but refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the CPS was entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 40(2) and 42(1) of the FOIA to withhold the information. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 42
View Crown Prosecution Service
11 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of all emails sent and received by the Chief Executive of the public authority which relate in any way to British Cycling. The public authority withheld the requested information on the basis of the exemptions at sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), 40(2) and 41 FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemptions at section 36(2)(b) FOIA to withhold the information held within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View UK Sport
11 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information as to why his property was designated as being within green belt land following a review by the council. He also requested information as to why it was not included within the designated boundary of a village. The request followed the complainant making a previous subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the ‘DPA’) to the council following which information had been disclosed to him. The council providing him with links to documents on its website. Further to this it responded stating that it does not hold any further information beyond that which had been provided to him previously in response to his request under the DPA. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View North Hertfordshire District Council
11 Jan 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Ministry of Justice information it held about what she termed “lawful rebellion”. At the date of this notice, she has yet to receive a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days and is in breach of sections 1(1) and 10(1) FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Ministry of Justice to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17(1) FOIA. The Ministry of Justice 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 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
11 Jan 2018Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application. The Council provided some information and withheld other information under regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b) and 13 of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b). It was also entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) and regulation 13 with regard to most of the information withheld under those exceptions. However the Commissioner finds that some of the information falling within the scope of regulation 12(4)(e) and regulation 13 ought to have been disclosed. The Commissioner also finds that the Council does not hold any further information relevant to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13
11 Jan 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of all reports to the Greater Manchester Police service by a named clinical forensic psychiatrist in relation to the police search for, and arrest of, Dale Cregan in 2012. The Commissioner’s decision is that Greater Manchester Police has correctly withheld the requested information relying on the section 31(1) FOIA law enforcement exemption. She also found that the police had breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) FOIA in failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require the Greater Manchester Police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 31
View Greater Manchester Police
11 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for a copy of the guidance issued to officials on the qualifying remunerative work test for self-employed persons claiming working tax credits pursuant to the Tax Credits Act 2002. The public authority withheld the guidance on the basis of the exemptions at section 31(1)(a) and section 31(1)(g) by extension, section 31(2)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold the guidance on the basis of section 31(1)(g) and by extension, section 31(2)(a) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
10 Jan 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information in respect of a case Dyfed Powys Police had referred to the Crown Prosecution Service but which the CPS had decided not to proceed with. Dyfed Powys Police refused the request by virtue of section 12(1) of the FOIA on the basis that the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that Dyfed Powys Police was not entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA and that in failing to provide meaningful advice and assistance, breached section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to the complaint which does not rely on section 12 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Dyfed-Powys Police
10 Jan 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about child sexual abuse investigations. By the date of this notice, the Home Office has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached sections 1 (general right of access) and 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt.
The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:provide the complainant with a response to her request which complies with the requirements section 1(1) of the FOIA, or issue a valid refusal notice.
The Home Office 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
10 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to planning enforcement matters. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exceptions for course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)) and commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Wirral Council
10 Jan 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Teversham Skate Park. The council responded disclosing some information. The complainant contacted the Commissioner, as he remains dissatisfied with the way in which his request was handled. Specifically, the complainant is unhappy that the council took more than 20 working days to respond. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days. But as the council has now responded and the complainant has raised no concerns about the response provided, the Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View South Cambridgeshire District Council
9 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a letter sent to the CEO of Nissan from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) originally withheld the letter under sections 22(1) (information intended for future publication) and 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the FOIA and latterly applied section 29(1) (a) (prejudice the economic interests of the United Kingdom or of any part of the United Kingdom) during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS correctly withheld the letter under section 22(1) of the Act and that at the time of the request the public interest balance favoured maintaining the exemption. She does not therefore require BEIS to take any steps as a result of this notice. However, the Commissioner has found that BEIS breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to provide a substantive response to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Department for Business and Trade
9 Jan 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of newsletters. Potto Parish Council (the council) provided the information but the complainant was not satisfied with the time it took to supply it. The Commissioner has determined that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it provided the information outside the required 20 working day timeframe set by the FOIA. As the information has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
9 Jan 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to legal-aid funding of judicial reviews. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information within the scope of the request but refused the remainder citing section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has not demonstrated that section 12(1) applies. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response that does not rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Ministry of Justice
9 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about communications on raising money from hedge funds. The National Health Service Improvement (NHSI) confirmed that it did not hold any further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSI does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require NHSI to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS England
9 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a meta-request to the Cabinet Office following on from an earlier request he had submitted to it about the cloud based collaboration tool Slack. The Cabinet Office refused the meta-request on the basis of section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The complainant subsequently made a further request for the reasonable opinion record and the correspondence leading up to it which the Cabinet Office used to engage section 36 to the information in the scope of the meta-request. The Cabinet Office argued that the information in the scope of the further request was itself exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (c) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that information falling in the scope of the further request is exempt on the basis of these exemptions and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
9 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the financial leaving settlement of the Chief Executive. The Teignbridge District Council (the Council) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Teignbridge District Council
9 Jan 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the Birmingham Pub Bombings 1974 and legal aid. The Home Office withheld the requested information, citing sections 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) and 35(1)(b) (Ministerial communications) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the sections 35(1)(a) and (b) exemptions are engaged. However, she considers that in relation to some of the withheld information the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner also considers that the Home Office has breached sections 10 (time for compliance) and 17(1) (refusal of a request) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the first three paragraphs of the withheld information. 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 f
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 35
View Home Office
8 Jan 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the purchase and use of mobile phone surveillance equipment from the Police and Crime Commissioner for Staffordshire (“the PCC”); to date she has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PCC has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. She requires it 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
8 Jan 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the Sheffield City Council’s policy on drop kerb installation at bus stops as well as the number of these installed. The Council provided information on its policy but stated it did not hold information on the number of drop kerbs installed at bus stops. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has fulfilled its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA by stating that this information is not held. She therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Sheffield City Council
8 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information associated with the licenced control of badgers to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis. Having provided a response originally, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation Natural England (NE) provided a fresh response that addressed the complainant’s outstanding concerns. NE considers it has now released all the relevant information that it holds and that the information it has redacted is exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(3) of the EIR (personal data), regulation 12(5)(a) (public safety) and regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings). NE also considers it has complied with regulation 6(1)(form and format). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: NE has made available all the information it holds within the scope of the complainant’s requests other than some information which it has redacted (“the withheld information”) and has therefore complied with regulation 5(1). NE has not breached regulation 6(1) in
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(3); EIR 5(1); EIR 6
View Natural England
8 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Rugby Borough Council (the Council) information relating to a site visit to a particular building project based in the local area. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests are manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0020 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Rugby Borough Council
8 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from South Yorkshire Police the communications between David Crompton and his legal team at the Hillsborough inquests that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) claimed they were unable to access for their investigation. South Yorkshire Police withheld the requested information under Sections 42, 31(1) and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Yorkshire Police has correctly applied Section 42 of the FOIA. Therefore, no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View South Yorkshire Police
4 Jan 2018Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about sexual assaults in prisons from the Ministry of Justice (the “MOJ”); to date she has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. She requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
4 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested communications about a specific piece of land from Natural England to any external and internal parties. Natural England confirmed it held information but considered it excepted from disclosure by virtue of the provisions set out in regulation 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b) and 12(3) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the correspondence held by Natural England all falls within the definition of internal correspondence and therefore engages regulation 12(4)(e) and that the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exception. She requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0017 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Natural England
4 Jan 2018Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested polling and similar information regarding a proposed housing stock transfer. The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (“LBHF”) refused to provide it citing section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. Since the request, LBHF has changed its position regarding the proposed housing stock transfer. In correspondence with the Commissioner, it maintained its position with regard to section 36(2)(c) and also introduced reliance on section 40(2) (unfair disclosure of personal data) for some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that by the time of the internal review, LBHF was entitled to rely on section 40(2) in respect of the personal data contained in the information it held within the scope of the request. However, it was no longer entitled to reply on section 36(2)(c) as its basis for refusing to provide the remainder. The Commissioner requires the
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
3 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the vote cast by the United Kingdom on the installation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the UN Commission on the Status of Women. The request was refused under section 27 – international relations. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Department also applied section 40(2) to withhold the names of junior officials. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department is entitled to rely on section 27 to withhold the majority of the information and section 40(2) to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40
View Government Equalities Office
2 Jan 2018Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for information about honours offered to the actors Paul Scofield and Peter O’Toole but which they had refused. In relation to Paul Scofield the Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information but sought to withhold this on the basis of section 37(1)(b) (the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. In relation to Peter O’Toole the Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information relying on section 37(2) by virtue of section 37(1)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 37(1)(b) to withhold the information it acknowledges holding about Paul Scofield. The Commissioner has also concluded that the Cabinet Office can rely on section 37(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information about Peter O’Toole.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
21 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Council which consists of a report into allegations against a former Council employee. The Council has refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 40(2) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
21 Dec 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Walberswick Parish Council which is associated with its community playing fields. The Commissioner has decided that the Council has provided the complainant with all of the recorded information it holds which is relevant to his request for information. She is satisfied that the Council holds no further recorded information than that which it has already provided. The Council’s provision of recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request as satisfied the duty to do so provided by section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with a response to his request within the twenty working day compliance period.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
21 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested documents and correspondence relating to a petroleum licence granted by the Department for the Economy. The Department disclosed some information and withheld other information in reliance on the exceptions at regulation 12(5)(d) and regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(5)(d) and regulation 12(5)(e) with regard to most of the withheld information. However the Commissioner finds that some of the withheld information ought to have been disclosed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Department for the Economy (Northern Ireland)
20 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for access to papers contained in files CAB 185/11, 14 and 16. The Cabinet Office withheld this information on the basis of section 23(1) (security bodies) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exemption. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0011 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
20 Dec 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an overcharge by a subcontractor to Brighton and Hove City Council. The Council disclosed some information but redacted the identity of the subcontractor under the exemptions provided by sections 40(2), 41(1), and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. The complainant contested whether the information had been correctly withheld, that that further relevant information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld some of the information under section 41(1). In respect of the first limb of the request, the Council has breached section 16 by failing to provide advice and assistance to clarify its scope. In respect of the second limb of the request, no further relevant information is held. The Council breached the requirements of sections 10(1) and 17(1) in responding to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: In re
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Brighton and Hove City Council
20 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested business ratepayer information from the City of London Corporation (COL). COL refused part of the request, for ratepayer names, relying on the exemption at section 31(1)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 31(1)(a) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the business ratepayer names as set out in the complainant’s 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 31
View City of London Corporation
20 Dec 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to perjury. Humberside Police has explained that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Humberside Police does not hold any further information and has complied with section 1 of the FOIA. However, she considers that Humberside Police has breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Humberside Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Humberside Police
19 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an email sent by Ansty Parish Council to Rugby Borough Council regarding objections received concerning his planning application. The Council failed to respond until requested to by the Commissioner. The Commissioner’s decision is that Rugby Borough Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA (time for compliance) by failing to respond to the complainant within 20 working days, and therefore also breached section 1(1) by neither confirming nor denying it holds the requested information within the time for compliance. As the Council has now responded to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Rugby Borough Council
19 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested data relating to lessons learned within the BBC. The BBC 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 complainant complained to the Commissioner that, in refusing his request, the BBC had not complied with section 16 of the FOIA – duty to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has breached section 16 of the FOIA, since it failed to provide the complainant with adequate advice and assistance in narrowing down his request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View BBC
19 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a letter sent to the former Prime Minister of Australia concerning renunciation of nationality. The Home Office failed to respond substantively to this request and the Commissioner’s decision is that in so doing the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Home Office is now required to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
19 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information that contracted companies supply to the Department for Work and Pensions about their undertaking of Personal Independence Payments assessments. It relies on section 43(2) (commercial interests) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Work and Pensions has not persuaded her that section 43(2) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Work and Pensions
19 Dec 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a legal opinion obtained by London Borough of Bromley (the Council) relating to an application to grant a certificate of lawfulness for a property. The Commissioner is satisfied that regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR is engaged and that the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exception. However, as the Council had not issued a refusal notice within 20 working days, the Commissioner finds that the Council has breached regulation 14(2). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Bromley Council