8 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Post Office Ltd for copies of guidance or instructions it gives to Agents regarding the services they provide to the public. The Post Office initially refused the request under the section 43(2) (commercial interests) exemption but during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation changed its position and applied section 12(1) (cost exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and section 12(1) was correctly applied. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Post Office
7 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information sent to parents. The Manor Park CE (VC) First School (the School) says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) and is satisfied that the School met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
7 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HMRC in relation to a particular liquidator. It is HMRC’s position that the information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the requested information is held. The Commissioner now requires HMRC to issue a fresh response to the request which complies with its obligation under section 1(1)(b) FOIA but which does not rely on section 40(2). 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 1
7 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (“the Council”) relating to a property situated within the Borough. The Council provided some information to the complainant, however it stated that it did not hold any further information within the scope of her request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the complainant’s request other than that which has already been provided to her.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
7 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Natural England entering into partnership with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (‘BASC’). Natural England disclosed some of the requested information to the complainant, however it withheld some of the requested information (‘the withheld information’) citing regulations 12(3) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Natural England has correctly applied the above regulations of the EIR to the withheld information. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(3); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Natural England
7 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to officers of the public authority. Morecambe Town Council responded to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Morecambe Town Council breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) of the FOIA but did not breach section 16(1). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a new response to the request and, where information is being withheld under provisions of Part II of the FOIA, issue a refusal notice in compliance with section 17(1). 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 clarification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0274 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17
7 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for correspondence David Beckham or his representatives may have exchanged with the department over the period January 2011 to March 2014. The MOD refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 40(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the MOD is entitled to rely on this exemption as a basis to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Defence
7 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communication exchanges between the General Optical Council (GOC) and its Stakeholder Group about the formulation of a particular code. GOC’s position is that the requested information is exempt from release under section 36(2)(b) and (c) of the FOIA as it considers that disclosing it would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice and views, or would otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that: Sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) are engaged but that the public interest favours disclosing the requested information. Section 36(2)(c) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Release the requested information to the complainant, with personal data redacted in line with section 40(2) of the FOIA, as appropriate.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View General Optical Council
7 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a particular report that was leaked to the BBC. The BBC said that the requested information was covered by the derogation and excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall within the scope of FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
7 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a dispute with the trust in respect of alleged racial and maternity discrimination and bullying. The trust failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in this case. However, as a response has been issued and no complaint has been raised about its contents, the Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
7 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the decision of the Financial Reporting Council’s (FRC) Conduct Committee in 2013 that there were “no reasonable grounds” to suspect that there may have been misconduct in the auditing of HBOS. The FRC withheld the information requested as it considered the requested information is outside the scope of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FRC is entitled to determine that the requested information is outside the scope of its responsibilities under the FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0284 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Financial Reporting Council
7 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report into an investigation carried out by the council following her complaint against a named organisation. The council provided some information from the report on the basis that it was the complainant’s own personal data which she was entitled to under the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). However it withheld the remaining information under section 40(2) – third party personal data, and section 43(2) – commercial prejudice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the majority of the withheld information constitutes the personal data of the complainant, albeit on occasions linked to the personal data of third parties. This information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of the FOIA, but should have been considered for disclosure under the DPA. There is a small amount of information which is purely the personal data of third parties, some of which is exempt from disclosure under the FOIA by virtue of section 40(2),
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
View Enfield Council
7 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested access to the closed document FCO 9/1053. The National Archives (TNA) cited the exemption provided by section 27 – international relations to refuse the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA is entitled to rely on the exemption provided by section 27(1) to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View The National Archives
6 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested statistical information relating to the number of people convicted of particular types of offence who had been released by the Parole Board having completed a specific accredited programme. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) ultimately confirmed that it held information within the scope of the request but that it could not be provided without exceeding the costs limit under section 12 of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly applied section 12(1) to the requested information. However, she found breaches of section 10(1) (time for compliance) and section 16(1) (duty to provide advice and assistance) of the FOIA. She does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
6 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the social care records relating to a deceased person. Cumbria County Council withheld the requested information under sections 41(1), 40(2) and 40(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the requested information under sections 41(1), 40(2) and 40(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0285 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Cumbria County Council
6 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various items of information in respect of a Health Inspectorate Wales review of an Independent External Review commissioned by the then, Cardiff Local Health Board into its care of the perpetrator of the murder of a named individual in 2003. The Welsh Assembly Government refused the request citing sections 38(1)(a) and 38(1)(b), and section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has correctly relied on sections 38(1)(a) and 38(1)(b) of the FOIA in respect of this request. However, the Welsh Assembly Government’s failure to send its refusal notice within the time required represents a breach of section 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0282 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 38
View Welsh Government
6 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Hampshire Constabulary (the Constabulary) information regarding the number of stop and searches conducted by the police force on people aged under 18 for each financial year from 2009 to 2015. The complainant did not dispute the Constabulary’s response that the information related to 2009/10 and 2010/11 was not held and that the application of section 21(1) (information reasonably accessible by other means) with regard to financial years 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 was appropriate. Accordingly the Commissioner only investigated the application of section 21(1) to the information in relation to the financial year for 2014/15. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary incorrectly applied section 21(1) in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
6 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the consideration by the London Borough of Havering (the Council) of the long term parking needs of visitors and staff to the Queens Hospital when the Rom Valley Ice Rink closed down. The Council released some information relating to the request subject to redactions made under section 40(2) (third party personal data) of the FOIA. It denied holding any further information in relation to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any additional information beyond that which had already been identified. With regard to the Council’s reliance on section 40(2), the Commissioner has found that this only applies to the names of the junior members of staff. The Commissioner therefore requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must disclose the names of the individuals listed in the confidential annex. Informa
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View London Borough of Havering
6 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications between NHS Improvement, SSG Health and East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust as well as any recorded information held by NHSI on SSG’s engagement with the Trust. NHSI disclosed some information but withheld information contained in various emails and documents on the basis of section 31, 33, 43 and 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSI has correctly applied sections 31(1)(g) with 31(2)(c), 43(2) and 40(2) to the information it has withheld and the public interest favours withholding the information. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40; FOI 43
View NHS England
2 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a bridleway which borders his land. The council provided the majority of the information however the complainant believes that further information should be held. 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 request. She also considers that it was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(e) to some information (commercial confidentiality), however she has also decided that the council was wrong to apply Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) to other information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the information which it withheld under Regulation 12(4)(e).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Lancashire County Council
2 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom 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 happy with the way Cheshire East Council dealt with his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire East Council complied with its obligation under section 1 FOIA. However Cheshire East Council initially failed to state whether or not it holds some of the information requested and consequently breached section 10(1) and section 16(1) of the FOIA. Cheshire East Council has now fully responded to the request therefore the Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View Cheshire East Council
2 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation into alleged corruption. The Council withheld the requested information under section 22 FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the Council was correct to apply section 22 FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
2 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the name of a type of software being used. The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the council) provided the information but the complainant was not satisfied with the time it took the council to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it responded to the request outside the required 20 working days of the FOIA. As the council has now responded to the request, the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
2 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about systems of clinical governance. The Commissioner’s decision is that Amman Tawe Partnership has failed to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance, and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires Amman Tawe Partnership to provide the complainant with a response to his request which complies with the requirements of section 1(1) of the FOIA, or issue a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
2 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about imaging scanners. The Home Office provided some information and withheld the rest under sections 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime), (b)(apprehension or prosecution of offenders), (e) (the operation of immigration controls) and 21 (information accessible by other means) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has applied section 31(1)(a)(b) and (e) of FOIA appropriately. However, the Commissioner considers that the Home Office has breached sections 10 (time for compliance) and 17 (refusal of a request) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31
View Home Office
2 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to food refusals across the detention estate. 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. 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
2 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning an investigation by the council into its assessment and award of Discretionary Housing Payments in light of the judgement of the Sandwell case regarding the way in which councils should administer discretionary housing payments. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has not correctly applied section 31(1)(g) to the withheld information. She has also found that the council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold some of the requested information to the extent that it is personal data, but that it does not apply to the information in its entirety.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View Wirral Council
1 Nov 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information about two television programmes, ‘BBC Panorama: Rescued from a Forced Marriage’ and ‘KEO Films for BBC3: Bangkok Airport’. The FCO disclosed some information falling within the scope of this request but withheld further information on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO is entitled to rely on all of these exemptions in the manner in which it has. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to disclose the non-exempt information within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36; FOI 40
1 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Data Protection training, Performance Review Forums and Special Educational Needs Forums. The council provided a response on 31 May 2017.The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Surrey County Council
1 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all records of communications with a named individual about all FOIA requests received in the last 12 months. Transport Focus (TF) refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 40 and 42 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation a considerable amount of information was disclosed. With regards the remaining withheld information under the FOIA, the Commissioner has decided that it is exempt from disclosure under section 40. The Commissioner therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Transport Focus
1 Nov 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In four requests, the complainant has requested information from NHS South Worcestershire Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) about its Lymphoedema service. The CCG approached the complainant’s requests as questions and queries and answered them accordingly. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA with regard to the four requests as it did not clearly confirm whether it does or does not hold recorded information within the scope of these requests. As a result of her investigation, the Commissioner is prepared to accept that the CCG does not hold, in recorded form, the information the complainant has requested. The Commissioner also finds that the CCG breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not communicate to the complainant, within 20 working days, that it holds no relevant information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
1 Nov 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on a variety of matters, including health and safety, staffing and volunteers. The Council refused the complainant’s first request under section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit), and then under section 14(1) (vexatious). Subsequent requests were refused under section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that Bournemouth Borough Council was correct to apply section 14(1) to subsequent requests. She also finds that the Council was not obliged to issue refusal notices for subsequent requests in accordance with section 17(6) (where the request is considered vexatious, and an applicant has been notified in relation to a previous request that 14(1) applies, and it would be unreasonable for the public authority to service a further notice). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2017/0279 appeal part-allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Bournemouth Borough Council
31 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about whether Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (“LFRS”) had made changes to pay and conditions in the wake of a court judgment against a different fire and rescue service. LFRS confirmed that it held information falling within scope of the request, but that it was exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that LFRS did not apply the section 43(2) exemption correctly. The Commissioner requires LFRS to issue a fresh response to the complainant, either disclosing the information previously withheld under section 43(2) or providing a further refusal notice which is compliant with section 17 of the FOIA and does not rely on section 43(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service
30 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the design of DVLA’s databases. The DVLA refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it was vexatious within the meaning of section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not vexatious and therefore the DVLA was not entitled to refuse to comply with it under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the request, which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
30 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Through ten requests, the complainant has requested information from East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) about its lease cars. The Trust directed the complainant to its website where it said some of the requested information is published. It subsequently confirmed it is relying on section 21 (information already accessible to the applicant) with respect to this information. The Trust applied section 22 (information intended for future publication) to other information. The Commissioner’s decision is that: Section 21(1) is not engaged with respect to requests 4, 5 and 8. Section 22(1) is not engaged with respect to requests 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 and 10. The Trust has breached section 1(1) with respect to request 3 as it has not confirmed to the complainant that it holds this information or communicated it to her. The Trust has breached section 10(1) with regard to the ten requests. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure complia
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 21; FOI 22
View East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust
30 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office (the “HO”) about events at universities featuring hate speakers. The HO provided some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) and 38(1)(a) & (b) (health and safety) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HO was entitled to rely in part on the exemption at section 31(1)(a). However, she does not consider that any exemption cited is engaged in respect of the total number of events recorded for each year requested. The Commissioner requires the HO to take disclose the number of events featuring hate speakers on university campuses recorded by the Extremism Analysis Unit in 2014, 2015 and 2016.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 38
View Home Office
30 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various financial information in respect of external consultants. Gwynedd Council refused the request by virtue of section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Gwynedd County Council was entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse this request, and that it complied with its obligations to provide appropriate advice and assistance under section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Gwynedd Council
30 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement (VPR) Scheme in relation to Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. The Home Office confirmed that it held some relevant information but refused to disclosed it citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice and exchange of views) and 36(2)(c) (other prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA is engaged and that the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption. However, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory time limit the Home Office breached section 10(1) of the FOIA (time for compliance). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/2481/2018 permission to appeal refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36
View Home Office
30 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested numbers of reports of self-harm at an immigration removal centre, from the Home Office (the “HO”). 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; FOI 17
View Home Office
30 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a draft report regarding Adult Services Partnership Boards. The London Borough of Haringey (“LBH”) refused to provide this information citing section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduce of public affairs) as its basis for doing so. It failed to conduct an internal review despite repeated requests for one from the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBH is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Haringey Council
30 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any policies or procedures Greater Manchester Police (GMP) follows regarding the entry and search of premises. GMP initially said that it did not hold the information described in the request. Following an exchange of correspondence, in which it said the complainant had submitted a new request, it disclosed information which fell within the scope of the original request. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to communicate to the complainant information described in the request, within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, GMP breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. She also found a breach of section 1 (general right of access) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Greater Manchester Police
30 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complaints made about Greater Manchester Police (GMP). Although GMP responded to the request, it did not do so within 20 working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, GMP breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. As a response has been provided, the Commissioner does not require GMP to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Greater Manchester Police
30 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Border Force disciplinary matters including the number of Border Force Officials dismissed and otherwise disciplined, within a specified timeframe, for committing a criminal offence while on duty. The Home Office provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office incorrectly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA as the withheld information is sufficiently anonymised to take it out of the definition of personal data. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the withheld information
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
26 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of minutes and notes of meetings between, the public authority and the BBC, the public authority and other departments, and, within the public authority, in relation to the government’s decision to cease funding the over 75s TV licence concession, and for the BBC to take over the responsibility. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request in reliance on the exemptions at sections 35(1)(a) and (b), 36(2)(b), 40(2), 42(1) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 35(1)(a) and (b), 36(2)(b), 42(1), 43(2), and 40(2) save with respect to the phone numbers of senior officials. She has therefore ordered the public authority to release the withheld phone numbers.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 42; FOI 43
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
26 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of minutes and notes of meetings between the public authority and officials in relation to the government’s decision to cease funding the over 75s TV licence concession, and for the public authority to take over the responsibility. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request in reliance on the exemptions at sections 36(2)(b) and (c) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption contained at section 36(2)(b).
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View BBC
26 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Electoral Commission for copies of representations it had received from the Conservative Party in relation to the Commission’s investigation of its campaign spending returns. The Commission refused to disclose the requested information in reliance on the section 31 (law enforcement) exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt under section 31(1)(g) and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Electoral Commission
26 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on air quality blackspots. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold most of the requested information and has provided advice and assistance to the complainant to direct her to another public authority. The final part of the requested information is already in the public domain on the Council’s website. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0277 struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
26 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the role of the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (UCLH) in relation to a trachea operation. UCLH considers the request to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCLH was not entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires UCLH to issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
26 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Castle Bromwich Parish Council (“the council”). She sought a photocopy of all signed agendas, minutes and meeting papers from 30 March 2016 onwards, or draft minutes if signed minutes were not available. The council refused to comply with the request on the basis that the exemptions under section 21 and section 22 were engaged under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). These exemptions relate to information that is already reasonably accessible and information intended for future publication. The complaint about the use of these exemptions was informally resolved however there remained a complaint about access to the meeting papers requested. The council sought to rely on the exemption under section 14(1) relating to vexatious requests. The Commissioner was not persuaded that this exemption was engaged. The Commissioner requires the council to take specified steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
25 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested recorded information from Wiltshire Council which concerns a number of planning applications. Some of the information requested by the complainant, in particular section 106 agreements, was subsequently published on the Council’s website, whilst other information within the scope of her request was withheld in reliance on Regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(d) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wiltshire Council has properly applied Regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(d) of the EIR to 10 emails which it held at the time the complainant made her request. She has also decided that the Council breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within twenty working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 5(2)
View Wiltshire Council