19 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the London Lockdown July 2016 report concerning the operation of rogue landlords together with statistics relating to such landlords. The council provided some of the statistics requested apart from one set which it initially refused to disclose under section 30- investigations and proceedings, which it also cited as its basis for refusing to disclose the Lockdown report itself. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council changed its position. It explained that it was now withholding the report under section 31 – law enforcement, and that it did not hold the outstanding set of statistics. The Commissioner’s decision is that council is not entitled to rely on section 31 to withhold the report. However the Commissioner is satisfied that it does not hold the statistics. By failing to confirm this to the complainant the council has breached section 1(1)(a). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the London L
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 31
View London Borough of Lambeth
18 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) about Bulk data, Anonymised data and Mileage data products. DVLA withheld the information under section 21(1) of the FOIA (information already reasonably accessible to applicant). During the Commissioner’s investigation, DVLA withdrew its reliance on section 21(1) and advised that it considers that the requested information engages section 31(1)(a)(law enforcement), section 40(2) (personal data), section 43(2)(commercial interests) and section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure). It also considers that the request could be categorised as vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)(a) with the public interest favouring maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require DVLA to take any steps in order to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
18 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a donation to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) from the Constitutional Research Council (CRC). The Electoral Commission (EC) stated that the information, if held, would be exempt under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA and that the duty to confirm or deny whether the information is held does not arise under section 44(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EC was correct to refuse to confirm or deny if it held the requested information under section 44(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View The Electoral Commission
18 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about prosecutions for knife crime. Sussex Police failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police has breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Sussex Police
18 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the successful candidates for a position he applied for. The Environment Agency (EA) 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 EA 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 Environment Agency
18 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the markers' guidance for marking the 2017 KS2 tests from the Standards and Testing Agency (STA). As an executive agency of the Department for Education (the DfE), the STA does not constitute a public authority for the purposes of FOIA and so this notice is issued to its parent Department, the DfE. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs 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 Department for Education
18 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the markers' guidance for marking the 2016 and 2017 KS2 Sats from the Standards and Testing Agency (STA). As an executive agency of the Department for Education (the DfE), the STA does not constitute a public authority for the purposes of FOIA and so this notice is issued to its parent Department, the DfE. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs 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 Department for Education
18 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence between various parties and Thames Valley Police, relating to complaints about a local resident. Thames Valley Police would neither confirm nor deny holding the information, citing the exemptions at section 30 (investigations and proceedings) and section 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thames Valley Police was entitled to rely on section 30(3) to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Thames Valley Police
18 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the cost of implementing the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). TfL refused to disclose the requested information under regulation 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(e) EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(e) EIR in this case. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to which regulation 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(e) EIR have been applied.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Transport for London
18 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding contracts between the Department for International Development (DfID) and external organisations. DfID aggregated the requests as provided under section 12(4) of the Act and refused to comply with the requests citing section 12(1) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfID is entitled to aggregate the requests under section 12(4) and is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the Act to refuse to comply with the requests. However, the Commissioner considers that DfID has not complied with its obligations under section 16 of the Act to provide the complainant with reasonable advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with sufficient advice and assistance to enable her to make a meaningful request under the Act. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for International Development
18 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about FOI requests that have required ministerial approval. 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
18 Dec 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a serious incident investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust (formerly Peterborough & Stamford NHS Trust) (the trust) has correctly applied section 40(2) personal data to part of the withheld information. The Commissioner also finds that the trust has correctly applied section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) to the majority of the remaining withheld information. However, she has concluded that section 42(1) does not apply to all the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information listed in the confidential annex schedule. 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 A
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 42
View NORTH WEST ANGLIA NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
18 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made three requests for various information about the costs relating to signposts. The Great Budworth Parish Council responded to each request outside of the time for compliance provided by section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) in respect of each request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
18 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the legal advice received by the Southampton County Council (the Council) on the issue of the Uber licence. The legal advice was withheld under section 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision, after considering the public interest test, is that the Council has correctly applied this exemption and the public interest favours withholding the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Southampton City Council
18 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Council for information relating to the care of his late father. The Council refused to comply with the request under section 14 FOIA as it considers it to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 14 FOIA to the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2018/0004) dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Surrey County Council
18 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested statistical information about arrested persons who have been released whilst under investigation. Sussex Police failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police has breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Sussex Police
18 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to street works started in 2016. The Commissioner’s decision is that Severn Trent Water (STW) has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Severn Trent Water
14 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a review of a viability assessment relating to a planning application. Horsham District Council disclosed some of the information and withheld other information under the exception for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Horsham District Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Horsham District Council
14 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) information broadly relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and also for information relating to the care of his late father. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IPCC has correctly applied section 21 of the FOIA to some parts of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0294 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
14 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Justice (the “MOJ”) about offenders recalled from licence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. 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
View Ministry of Justice
14 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the job titles and salaries of all staff employed by Redditch Borough Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Redditch Borough Council has correctly applied the exemption for third party personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA to the exact salary figures. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Redditch Borough Council
14 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the disclosure of an email from a third party which the complainant says was shown to him at a meeting of parish councillors on the Castlehaven Village Green. The complainant has also requested copies of all internal communications regarding himself and his wife. The Commissioner’s decision is that Niton and Whitwell Parish Council is entitled to withhold the email requested by the complainant in his first request in reliance on Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner has decided that the Council is entitled to rely on Section 40(1) of the FOIA or Regulation 5(3) of the EIR, in respect of the complainant’s second request, on the grounds that the information he seeks is his and his wife’s personal data and the public authority has already considered this data under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(3); FOI 40
14 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an MP’s visit from the Ministry of Justice (the “MOJ”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. She requires the MOJ to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
14 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of transcripts of police interviews conducted with the late Greville Janner (Lord Janner of Braunstone). Leicestershire Police withheld this information under the exemptions provided by sections 30(1)(a), (b) and (c) (information held for the purposes of an investigation), 31 (law enforcement), 38 (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. Having considered its application of section 30(1)(a), the Commissioner’s decision is that Leicestershire Police was entitled to rely on that section to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Leicestershire Police
13 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office regarding the Undercover Policing Inquiry. To date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that, although it has complied with section 17(1) FOIA in stating which exemption is to be relied upon, by failing to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time period the Home Office has breached section 17(3) FOIA. The Commissioner also found breaches of sections 1(1) and 10(1) FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response to the complainant’s request, either disclosing the requested information or issuing a refusal notice which includes the outcome of any public interest considerations.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View Home Office
13 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the council in relation to a public consultation of a proposed 20 mph limit and information relating to proposed road closures and a resident’s questionnaire. The council has acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s requests but has failed to respond in accordance with regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner has therefore decided that the council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. She therefore requires the council to issue a response to both requests in accordance with the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
13 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested fire safety information relating to a named business premises at a specified address. Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service ultimately refused to disclose the information citing section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service was entitled to rely on that section to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service
13 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to two named lay panel members of the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Tribunal including in relation to their swearing of the Judicial Oath. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held the requested information but refused to provide it citing section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly applied section 40(2) to the requested information. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of that decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
13 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to Selby District Council for copies of an email containing representations relating to a planning application heard at the Council’s Planning Committee on 7 September 2016. In response the Council said that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the requested information is not held and the Council dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
12 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about ‘pay-offs’ and associated payments to senior officers from financial years 2012/13 to 2016/17, as well as the circumstances surrounding the departure of two particular officers. Hambleton District Council supplied some information, but withheld other details, relying on section 40(2) of the FOIA (information is exempt if it is personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that Hambleton District Council is entitled to rely on section 40(20) of the FOIA in withholding some of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
12 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the rollout of superfast Broadband (funding and decision making) in the Darlington area. Darlington Borough Council failed to respond within the statutory 20 working days prescribed by FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to communicate to the complainant all the information it held to fulfil the request within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, Darlington Borough Council breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Council has now provided all the information to the complainant, therefore the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Darlington Borough Council
12 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of communications made in respect of welfare concerns relating to a particular individual. The London Borough of Lambeth (LBL) initially refused the request citing section 40(5) and section 41. During the course of the investigation it withdrew its reliance on section 41. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBL is not entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Respond to the request for information in accordance with FOIA section 1(1)(a). 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 40
View London Borough of Lambeth
12 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Western Health & Social Care Trust (“the Trust”) in relation to the Trust’s dental department. The Trust disclosed most of the requested information to the complainant, however it refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 40(2) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information and therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Western Health and Social Services Board
12 Dec 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking the names of the individuals who received five particular diplomatic telegrams ‘diptels’. The FCO initially refused to comply with this request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) because it considered that the process of doing so would be excessively burdensome. However, the FCO amended this position during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation and suggested that it could be argued that it did not in fact hold the requested information. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is not in fact held and that the FCO should have informed the complainant of this when it initially responded to his request. Its failure to do so represents a breach of section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The complainant also argued that the FCO had failed to respond to all aspects of an earlier related request he had submitted to it. The Commissioner agrees that the FCO did not respond to all aspec
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
11 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to third party claims costs. Highways England withheld the requested information under section 43(1) and (2) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that Highways England has incorrectly applied section 43(1) and (2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under section 43(1) and (2) FOIA. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View National Highways
11 Dec 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about land registrations in the borough of Wokingham. Wokingham Borough Council refused to comply with the request under regulation 6(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 6(1)(b). However the Council breached regulation 5(2) by failing to issue a valid response under the EIR within the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Wokingham Council
11 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of an investigation report, and associated information, into the use of procurement cards by former senior staff at the Association of Chief Police Officers’ Criminal Records Office (‘ACRO’). Hampshire Constabulary refused the request, citing the non-disclosure exemption at section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. It also cited section 31 (law enforcement) and section 38 (health and safety), and for parts of the request and said it did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 40 to refuse parts of the request. As she has found section 40(2) to be engaged, she has not considered the other cited exemptions further. In relation to the remaining requested information, the Commissioner finds, on the balance of probabilities, that Hampshire Constabulary does not hold this information. However, by failing to issue its refusal notice within the statutory 20 wo
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
11 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on television licensing. The BBC responded with a full answer. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC does not hold any further information and that appropriate help was provided in this case. The Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16; FOI 21
View BBC
11 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an investigation report into the use of procurement cards by former senior staff at the Association of Chief Police Officers Criminal Records Office (“ACRO”). The IPCC refused the request, citing the non-disclosure exemption at section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IPCC was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
11 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on meetings between the Chief Executive of OFCOM and Messrs Murdoch. The Office of Communications (OFCOM) refused to provide the requested information, relying on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure) in order to do so. In particular OFCOM cited the statutory prohibition on disclosure created by section 237 of the Enterprise Act 2002. The Commissioner’s decision is that OFCOM has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) and the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Office of Telecommunications
11 Dec 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a contract between Cumbria Constabulary and its insurer. Cumbria Constabulary disclosed the majority of the contract, but withheld financial information, citing the exemption at section 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cumbria Constabulary was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 43 to withhold the financial information. However, as Cumbria Constabulary responded to the request outside of the 20 working day timescale for compliance, she found a breach of section 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View Cumbria Constabulary
11 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a detention services order. By the date of this notice the Home Office had failed to respond substantively to this request and the Commissioner’s decision is that in so doing it breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Home Office is now required to provide a substantive response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
7 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about safeguarding referrals, reports and associated actions about three premises within a specified period. North Somerset Council initially withheld the information under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA on the basis that to confirm or deny it held information would reveal personal data about living individuals. It did however supply food hygiene records held about the establishments. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, North Somerset Council also relied on sections 31(1) and 31(3) of the FOIA on the basis that disclosure of held information, or acknowledgement that information is held or not held, could prejudice any investigation being run by the Council and other law enforcement agencies into alleged safeguarding concerns, and alert possible perpetrators about current or future safeguarding investigations. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Somerset Council has correctly applied sections 40(5)(b)(i), 31(1) and
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View North Somerset Council
7 Dec 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the council) that resulted in a specific email being sent to him in September 2015. The council maintains that no information is held within the scope of this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested information, and has therefore complied with section 1 of the FOIA. However, in responding to the initial request outside 20 working days, the Commissioner finds that the council has failed to comply with section 10 of the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0009 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/1890/2019 PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
7 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainants have requested information regarding planning and approvals for a specific development. The Commissioner’s decision is that Brentwood Borough Council does not hold any further information relevant to the requests. She does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); FOI 1
View Brentwood Borough Council
7 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on any restriction placed on Peel Airports regarding the future use of Durham and Tees Valley Airport and the surrounding land. The Commissioner’s decision is that Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0003 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Stockton-on-Tees Council
7 Dec 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the attendance of members at specific Honours, Decorations and Medals committee meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is not entitled to rely on the exemptions at FOIA sections 35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy) and 37(1)(b) (Communications with Her Majesty) to refuse the request. In order to ensure compliance with the legislation the Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to provide the complainant with the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0295 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
6 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of complaints made against a specific surgeon. The GMC states that under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA it is not obliged to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information as to do so would disclose personal data of a third person which would breach the first principle of the Data Protection Act (DPA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the General Medical Council (GMC) has correctly relied on section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOI. The Commissioner does not require the GMC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC
6 Dec 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the THINK! Cycle Safety campaign. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Transport (DfT) has correctly applied section 22 (intended for future publication) 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 22
View Department for Transport
6 Dec 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a position they applied for and why their application was unsuccessful. The university confirmed that questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 are requests for information which would constitute the complainant’s own personal data as so should be considered as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act (DPA). With regards to the remaining questions, the university provided a response. The complainant remained dissatisfied with the university’s handling of questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. With regards to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8, the Commissioner has decided that section 40(1) of the FOIA applies. With regards to question 6, the Commissioner has decided that the university has now complied with the requirements of section 1 of the FOIA and confirmed that the requested information is not held. The Commissioner considers the university breached section 1 of the FOIA by failing to confirm exactly that the information is not held
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View The University of Manchester