21 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to alleged bullying, racial and pregnancy discrimination within the trust. The trust refused to deal with the request, citing section 14 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust is entitled to rely on section 14 of the FOIA in this case. She therefore requires no further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
21 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the responses of two individuals he had made a complaint about. Canterbury City Council (the council) refused the request under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) of the FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Canterbury City Council
21 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the planned future use of two council depots. Cheshire East Council responded that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is, on the balance of probabilities, that Cheshire East Council does not hold the requested information. However, she considers Cheshire East Council has breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Cheshire East Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Cheshire East Council
21 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a public consultation: ‘Reporting and Acting on Child Abuse and Neglect’. The Home Office withheld the requested information, citing section 35(1)(a) (the formulation or development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has applied section 35(1)(a) of FOIA appropriately. However, she considers that the Home Office has breached sections 10(1) (time for compliance) and 17 (refusal of a request) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 35
View Home Office
21 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the Big Lottery Fund (BLF) seeking details of any concerns it had received or investigations it had undertaken in respect of Melness and Tongue Community Development Trust. The BLF refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the requests on the basis of section 31(3), by virtue of section 31(1)(a) (prevention and detection of crime). The Commissioner has concluded that section 31(3) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Big Lottery Fund
21 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to specific Land Registry titles. HMLR has refused to disclose the requested information relying on section 21 – information accessible by other means. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMLR has correctly relied on section 21 and she does not require HMLR to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View HM Land Registry
21 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Education Funding Agency (“EFA”) relating to the amount of deposit paid for a specific site. As an executive agency of the Department for Education (“DfE”), the EFA 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’s decision is that the DfE has incorrectly applied regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial interests) to the amount of deposit paid for the site. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with the monetary figure of the 10% deposit paid for the Bowring site. The DfE 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: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Department for Education
20 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from trading standards section of Lancashire County Council about a complaint made by him relating to a specific business enterprise. The Council has applied section 44(1) of the Act , on grounds that section 237 of the Enterprise Act 2002 provides a statutory prohibition on disclosing the information it holds to him; and section 30(1) (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) to the information and has not therefore gone on to consider section 30(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Lancashire County Council
20 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainants requested information about particular funding for a Heritage Arcade scheme from Rossendale Borough Council (the ‘Council’), who provided some of the requested information with redactions, but withheld the remainder. The Council cited section 21 (information accessible by other means), section 40(2) (personal information), section 41 (information provided in confidence), section 42 (legal professional privilege) and section 43 (commercial interests). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council revisited its handling of the request and also considered whether the remaining information constitutes environmental information. It concluded that it did, and advised that it wished to rely on regulations 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) and 12(5)(b) (course of justice) in respect of the remaining information. The Commissioner finds that the information constitutes environmental information and so should have been handled by the Council under the EIR from the outset.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Rossendale Borough Council
20 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested agendas and minutes from Department for Education (DfE) Board papers for a certain time period. The DfE disclosed some information from the agendas and minutes but refused the majority on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(i), (ii), (2)c) and 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly withheld information from the minutes under section 36(2)(b) and the names of junior officials from the agendas under section 40(2). However, she finds that the information in the agendas that has been withheld does engaged section 36(2)(c) but the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information in the agendas that has been incorrectly withheld under section 36(2)(c).
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Department for Education
20 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the plan of a car-park made by a Community Officer whilst issuing Excess Charge Notices. Wealden District Council disclosed information in response. The complainant contested that the information provided was not that requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all relevant held information in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wealden District Council
20 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked Cheshire East Council for a list of all traffic schemes where a number of specified traffic orders have been approved but not yet implemented. The Council has confirmed that it holds the information which the complainant seeks but has refused to disclose this on the Grounds that the request is manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire East Council is entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to comply with the complainant’s request. She accepts the Council’s position that the request is manifestly unreasonable and finds that the public interest favours the Council’s position.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Cheshire East Council
20 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Haringey Council (‘the Council’) correspondence between members of Haringey Residents Scrutiny Panel (RSP) and ‘Homes for Haringey’ (HFH) officers. HFH is an Arms Length Management Organisation associated with the Council. Having originally confirmed that it held no relevant information, the Council went on to identify and disclose information falling within the scope of the request during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Council has now complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Council breached section 10(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Haringey Council
20 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the Director General and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The BBC has failed to fully respond to this request. The Commissioner has decided that the BBC breached section 17(3) of the FOIA because it failed to provide the complainant with a final decision in relation to its public interest considerations within a reasonable time. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a final decision on the public interest considerations in compliance with section 17(3) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View BBC
20 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the company Uber. TfL refused to comply with the request as it said that it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL was correct to apply section 12 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. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Transport for London
20 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two requests for information from and relating to the Mountbatten collection. The University has failed to respond to these requests. The Commissioner considers that the University breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to these requests in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View University of Southampton
20 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the costs associated with a legal case. North Norfolk District Council disclosed information in response. The complainant contested that further relevant information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Council has provided all held information in response to the request, but has breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View North Norfolk District Council
16 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an estimate of the costs of particular works carried out on behalf of Essex County Council (the council) by a third party company. The council has provided the complainant with some information. However, it has refused to disclose further information held under section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 43(2) to the withheld information and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The complainant was also concerned that there was additional information held that had not been considered for disclosure. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has identified all that information that is relevant to the complainant’s request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View Essex County Council
16 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the latest version of the London Stadium Operations Manual from the London Borough of Newham (“LBN”). LBN said that it did not hold the information for the purposes of the FOIA. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBN does not hold the requested information for the purposes of the FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Newham Council
16 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested recorded information from Wokingham Borough Council which concerns the Council’s intended acquisition of land at Broken Brow, close to the Thames Valley Park. At the time the complainant submitted his request negotiations to buy the land at Broken Brow were still on-going. The Council determined that the information it holds, and which falls within the scope of the complainant’s request, should be withheld in reliance on Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR on the grounds that it is commercially sensitive and confidential. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wokingham Borough Council correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(e) to the information it has withheld from the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2018/0006 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Wokingham Council
16 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to deportations and forced removals of foreign nationals. To date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that, although it has complied with section 17(1) 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) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also found breaches of sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA (general right of access and time for compliance respectively). 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 the public interest considerations.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View Home Office
16 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) regarding the current status of the ‘SP’ inquiry. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has failed to give a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The MoJ must issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
16 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding enforced removals of foreign nationals from the Home Office (the “HO”). By the date of this notice, the HO has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HO breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in failing 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
View Home Office
16 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to financial information and Adult Social Care and Housing. Bracknell Forest Council (the council) provided some information and advised it did not hold the remaining requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council holds no further information other than that already provided. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bracknell Forest Council
16 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific caravan park. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hastings Borough Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the requests. The Commissioner has also decided that the council breached its obligations in relation to the time for compliance. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); FOI 1; FOI 10
View Hastings Borough Council
16 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence relating to a proposed development at Silver Hill. The Winchester City Council (the Council) applied Regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) to the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b), the Council complied with Regulation 9(1) (advice and assistance) and the Council breached Regulation 14(2) on timeliness. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 9(1)
View Winchester City Council
16 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of communications between former Prime Minister Tony Blair, his former Communications Director, Alastair Campbell, and Diana Princess of Wales, from 2 May 1997 to 31 August 1997. Following a search, the public authority established that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner has concluded on the balance of probabilities that the public authority does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
16 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested pre-application planning advice. The Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead withheld the information under the exception for interests of the information provider – regulation 12(5)(f). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(f) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Windsor and Maidenhead Council
15 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Kent (“the University”) regarding communications in relation to an online article about reptile mortality rates. The University refused to disclose that information (“the withheld information”) citing sections 36(2)(b)(ii), 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) to the withheld information. As she considers that this applies to all of the withheld information, she has not considered the University’s application of sections 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA to the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
15 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from The Planning Inspectorate the Inspector’s notes for 4 appeals determined by a specific inspector, including the notes that were taken in relation to her application for planning permission. The Planning Inspectorate (PI) provided information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on balance of probabilities, the PI does not hold information further to that already provided. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0289 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Planning Inspectorate
15 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) relating to its Unacceptable Customer Behaviour policy. The DWP refused the requests under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as compliance with the requests would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP is entitled to refuse the requests under section 12(1) of the Act. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department for Work and Pensions
15 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) information relating to a particular company. HMRC stated that the information, if held, would be exempt under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA and explaining 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 HMRC was correct to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information under section 44(2). The Commissioner therefore does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
15 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) asking it to confirm whether it was funding Risk Advisory Group to help train the Lebanon army, and if so, details about the nature of this contract. The FCO refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of this request on the basis of section 38(2) (health and safety) and section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that section 38(2) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0283 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
15 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a contract between the universities of Exeter and Plymouth in respect of the provision of a particular training course. Ultimately the University of Exeter disclosed a redacted version of the report. The redacted information was withheld under section 43 on the basis that its disclosure would prejudice commercial interests. The Commissioner has had to address one of the arguments presented by the university in a confidential annexe. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption provided by section 43 does not apply. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View The University of Exeter
13 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the total number of sick days taken at Heathrow Border Force, broken down by month, starting on 1st February 2016 and ending on 31st January 2017. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HO breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Respond to the complainant’s request dated 11 February 2017 in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
13 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about remuneration arrangements for chief fire officers, for working during industrial action. South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority (SYFR) disclosed information in response to the request. However, the complainant considered that it held further, relevant information which it had not disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, SYFR has disclosed all the information it holds which falls within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service
13 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Suffolk County Council (“the Council”) on a potential bypass for Sudbury. The complainant requested correspondence between various parties including the consultants charged with proposing the bypass route. The Council provided some information to the complainant and initially stated the majority of information was being withheld under regulations 12(4)(d) and (e) of the EIR; later amending its response to refuse the request as manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that complying with the request would be manifestly unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The Commissioner requires the public authority to identify the information it holds within the scope of the request and issue a fresh response that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Suffolk County Council
13 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Leeds City Council for its guidance, rules and codes which relate to reports concerning apparent incorrect conduct of a Planning Officer. The Council responded to this request by providing the complainant with its compliments and complaints policy, the Council’s constitution and its information access regime. The Commissioner has decided that, on the balance of probability, Leeds City Council does not hold any further information which meets the terms specified by the complainant in his request and therefore it has satisfied section 1(1) of the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0288 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/2169/2018 disposed by consent. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0139 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Leeds City Council
13 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Home Office (HO) the ticket cost for overseas escorts over the past five years. I would like the figures as a year by year breakdown. The HO required additional time in which to consider the public interest in disclosure but, to date, has failed to complete its deliberations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HO breached Sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. Furthermore, by failing to complete its public interest deliberations within a reasonable timeframe, the Commissioner finds that it has breached Section 17(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the HO 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 Home Office
13 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about pregnant women being held in immigration detention centres. The Home Office failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
9 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Care Quality Commission’s (the CQC) finding and enquiries relating to the security and availability of drugs at Queen’s Hospital, Romford. The CQC has provided some of the information requested, but has explained that it does not hold other information falling within the scope of the request. However, the complainant considers that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CQC does not hold any further information. The Commissioner does not require the CQC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View CQC
9 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Northumberland County Council which concerns asbestos and asbestos-containing materials occurring at the complainant’s rented property. During the course of its correspondence with the complainant the Council disclosed a number of documents which it considered were relevant to her requests. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the Council found additional information which falls within the terms of the complainant’s requests. Having reconsidered the nature of that information the Council determined that it constitutes the complainant’s personal data and therefore her requests under the EIR should be refused in reliance on Regulation 5(3). The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumberland County Council is entitled to refuse the complainant’s requests by virtue of Regulation 5(3) of the EIR, on the grounds that the information the Council has recently found is the complainant’s personal data. The Commissioner understands that the Cou
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(3)
View Northumberland County Council
9 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested historical information relating to [named children’s home]. The Commissioner’s decision is that Manchester City Council has correctly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) to the request. Therefore the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Manchester City Council
9 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information related to taxi and private hire vehicle compliance with the Equality Act 2010. The complainant is not satisfied with the way that East Riding of Yorkshire Council dealt with his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Riding of Yorkshire Council has complied with its obligation under section 1(1) and section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
9 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of some Recreation Ground Trust (the RGT) invoices. Debden Parish Council (the council) responded that it does not hold the invoices and that these invoices are held by the RGT only. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested invoices. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
9 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a terminated contract to develop a waste to energy facility. Norfolk County Council refused the request, citing the FOIA exemptions for legal professional privilege (section 42) and commercial interests (section 43(2)). It subsequently relied on EIR exceptions for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)) and commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Norfolk City Council correctly engaged regulation 12(5)(b) but that the public interest favours disclosing the information and, failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0290 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Norfolk County Council
9 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the proposal to locate the Holocaust Memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Communities and Local Government has breached the statutory time for compliance with the request. However, she does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
9 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In 13 requests, the complainant has requested information from London Borough of Wandsworth Council (‘the Council’) about its purchase of particular properties. The Council has released some information and says some of the information is exempt from release under section 21 of the FOIA because it is already reasonably accessible to the complainant. The complainant considers that the Council holds information within the scope of nine of his requests that it has not released. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has released all the information that it holds within the scope of requests 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 7, 9 and 10 and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA with regard to these requests. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council holds further information within the scope of request 2 that it has not released and has breached section 1(1)(a) with regards to this information. The Commissioner also finds that the
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View London Borough of Wandsworth
8 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a section 34 Dispersal Notice. Norfolk Constabulary asked for confirmation of the requester’s identity which they declined to give. Norfolk Constabulary refused to deal with the request citing section 8(1)(b) of the FOIA (request for information). The Commissioner’s decision is that, in the circumstances of this case, Norfolk Constabulary was entitled to consider the request did not meet the criteria for a valid request at section 8(1)(b) of the FOIA without confirmation of the complainant’s identity. The Commissioner does not require Norfolk Constabulary to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Norfolk Constabulary
8 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the University of Bolton for information regarding the appointment of Baroness Warsi as Pro-Vice Chancellor. The University refused to respond to the request on the basis that it is vexatious within the meaning of section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request can be characterised as vexatious and that section 14(1) applies. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Bolton NHS Trust