25 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to repair work carried out in her residential block. The Council provided some information and denied that other information was held. The Council also refused part of the request under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly refused the request under section 40(2) of the Act. The Council breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the Act by providing a late response to the complainant, but as the response has been issued no steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0276 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View Southwark Council
25 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the county of Worcestershire. West Mercia Police answered the request, but provided some information outside the 20 working day limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Mercia Police has breached sections 1(3) (clarification of a request) and 10(1) (time for compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require West Mercia Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View West Mercia Police
25 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) relating to the tending of a contract. The Council refused the request under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not demonstrated that compliance with the request would not exceed the appropriate limit and so cannot refuse the request under section 12(1) of the Act. The Council also breached section 16(1) of the Act as it failed to provide sufficient advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a new response to the complainant which does not refuse the request under section 12(1) of the Act.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Sandwell Council
25 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to temporary closures of the Dartford Crossing. The Commissioner’s decision is that Highways England (HE) has correctly applied section 24(1) (national security) 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 24
View National Highways
24 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to IT audits carried out. Nottingham City Council (the council) provided some information and relied on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the remaining. After some clarification of the information being sought, the council amended its response, no longer relying on section 12 of the FOIA but instead informing the complainant that the remaining requested information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any further information other than what has already been provided. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Nottingham City Council
24 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to certificates awarded by the Mayor for community service. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Hounslow (the council), has correctly applied section 40(2) to the list of names. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council located a list of the various award criteria relevant to some of the awards presented. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold any further information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to now disclose the list of award criteria. 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; FOI 40
View London Borough of Hounslow
24 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to the departure of a Headteacher. The council provided a resignation letter but refused to provide any further information relying on section 40(2) of the FOIA – Third party personal Data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse to provide any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Bolton Council
24 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Winchester City Council (“the council”) relating to a planning application. The council said that it could neither confirm nor deny whether the information was held in reliance on the exemption under section 40(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). The Commissioner considered that the request should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”) and the Data Protection Act 1998 (“the DPA”). The subject access aspect of the request has been considered separately. The Commissioner found that the exception under regulation 13(5) of the EIR applied and that the council was correct to state that it could neither confirm nor deny whether it held the information. The Commissioner found breaches of regulation 14(2) and 14(3)(a) of the EIR. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0273 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 14(3)(a)
View Winchester City Council
24 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the university which details the disposal or transfer of course material, resources and hardware for a number of courses offered to undergraduates at the time it was a Polytechnic. The university provided some explanations and answers to his questions but informed the complainant that it holds no recorded information of the nature specified in his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the university does not hold the requested information. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The University of Sunderland
24 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators a copy of the instructions sent to Daniel Watney LLP and the resulting retrospective valuation report. Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators responded by stating that it was not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and furthermore the requested information was not ‘environmental’. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators is a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and in this case the information requested is ‘environmental’. The Commissioner requires Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a new response under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1); EIR 2(2)(c)
23 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made two requests for information about a road defect. The complainant disputes that he has not received all held recorded information in response. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire East Council has complied with regulation 5(1) in respect of Request 1, but has breached regulation 5(2). In respect of Request 2 (Parts 1 and 2), the Commissioner finds that the Council has breached regulation 9(1), and in respect of Request 2 (Part 3) the Commissioner finds that, on the balance of probabilities, further recorded information may be held by the Council. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. In respect of Request 2 (Part 1), provide advice and assistance to the complainant so as to enable him to submit a clarified request. Such advice and assistance to include the query of which specific repair the recorded information is sought for, and an explanation of what recorded information i
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 9
View Cheshire East Council
23 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to an acoustic sound test. Horsham District Council confirmed that information was withheld under regulation 12(5)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The complainant disputed the application of this exception. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(b) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information, ensuring that any personal data is redacted in accordance with the Council’s obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Horsham District Council
23 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a recommendation whether to “call in” a planning application. The Department for Communities and Local Government confirmed that some information was not held and it withheld other information under the exception for internal communications – regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Communities and Local Government correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold the requested recommendations to the Minister. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0267 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
23 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). The Air Balloon Hill Primary School (the School) 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 School 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
23 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about organisations participating in a specific work placement scheme, and more generally any organisation participating in a “work for your benefit” placement. The DWP has refused to comply with the request, relying on section 12 – cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit.The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 12 in this case. However, she does not consider that DWP has provided the complainant with any advice or assistance which may have assisted in refining the request and she therefore considers that DWP has breached section 16.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide advice and assistance to enable the complainant to submit a refined request within the cost limit. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
23 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking the name of the individual who had written a letter to him. He also asked to be provided with the Nuclear Secretariat’s full contact address. The MOD withheld the name of the individual on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. After initially citing section 21 (information reasonably available be other means), the MOD provided the contact address. The Commissioner has concluded that name of the individual is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. However, she has also concluded that the MOD breached section 10(1) both in its failure to respond to the request within 20 working days and by not providing the Nuclear Secretariat’s full contact address within the same timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Ministry of Defence
23 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council about officers involved in a conveyancing matter. The Council responded that the information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the information is not held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0268 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Barnsley Council
23 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to sexual harassment. Kings College, Cambridge (the College) refused the request as vexatious under sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has incorrectly applied the provisions at sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore requires the College to issue a fresh response under the FOIA which does not rely on section 14. 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 14
23 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to taxi and private hire vehicle compliance with the Equality Act 2010. The complainant is not satisfied with the response given by Swindon Council (‘the Council’) to four of his requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 1(1)(a) with regards to requests 2 and 6 and breached section 10(1) with regards to requests 1, 2 and 6. She has decided that the Council complied with its obligation under section 16(1) with regards to requests 2 and 4. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View Swindon Borough Council
23 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests, the complainants have requested information about particular meeting minutes, and admission numbers. With regard to the first request, Belsay School (‘the School’) released some information and suggested that it holds no further relevant information. The School indicated that it did not hold the information requested in the second request but then went on to release this information to the complainants. With regard to Request 1, the Commissioner’s decision is as follows: 1.1 – The School has, on the balance of probabilities, now released all the relevant information it holds and has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. 1.2 – The School has breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA as it has not confirmed to the complainants whether it does or does not hold information within the scope of this part. 1.3 – The School has correctly applied section 40(2) to the information it holds and has withheld, because it is the personal data of third persons and it would be unfair t
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
19 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a series of requests, the complainant has requested information about how St Mary’s College (‘the College’) manages health and safety risks. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the College’s responses of 21 December 2016 and 27 January 2017 to the complainant’s request of 15 December 2016 breached section 1(1)(a) as the College did not clearly tell the complainant whether or not it held the information he had requested; and the College breached section 10(1) with regards to the complainant’s requests of 15 December 2016, 11 February 2017 and 11 August 2017 as it did not communicate to the complainant all the information it holds that falls within the scope of these requests within 20 working days. The College has now complied with its obligations under section 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b) of the FOIA with regards to the above requests, and the Commissioner does not require the College to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View St Mary's University College
19 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Spires Langton Girls' Grammar School (SLGGS). The DfE provided some information but redacted some information under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and (c) and 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE correctly applied sections 40(2) to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Department for Education
19 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Spires Langton Girls' Grammar School (SLGGS) proposed academy conversion. The DfE provided some information but redacted some information under sections 21, 22, 36(2)(b)(i) and (c), 40(2) and 41(1) FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the DfE withdrew its application of section 21, 22 and 41(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE correctly applied sections 40(2), 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Department for Education
19 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested particular meeting minutes, dates and information about its publication scheme from Parrs Wood High School (‘the School’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has not provided a response to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a response to his request of 23 July 2017 that complies with section 1(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View HARROW HIGH SCHOOL
19 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Haringey Council relating to specific aspects of the tender process for the development of Hornsey Town Hall in respect of the preferred bidder. Haringey Council refused the request citing FOIA section 43 – commercial interests. The Commissioner considers that the request should have been handled under the EIR and the requested information disclosed in accordance with that legislation. The Commissioner’s decision is that Haringey Council had incorrectly considered the request under FOIA. Given the opportunity to consider its position under EIR, Haringey Council relied on Regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner has considered the withheld information in the context of regulation 12(5)(e) EIR and considers that the exception is not engaged. The Commissioner further considers that in failing to provide an internal review within 40 working days of the request for a review, Haringey Council has breached regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(b)
View Haringey Council
19 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the service record of a named person and whether they were still alive in 1948. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed they held the service record of the named person but stated that they were unable to disclose 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 MoD has correctly applied the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0271 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Defence
19 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a department of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). DVLA released some information and has withheld the remainder which it says is exempt from release under section 40(2) of the FOIA because it is the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is the personal data of third persons and exempt from release under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require DVLA to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
19 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the meeting notes which relate to a review which was conducted by West Sussex County Council’s (“the Council”) safeguarding adults’ board, concerning the complainant’s brother. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA time for compliance in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: the Council must provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West Sussex County Council
19 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to oil and gas developments in the North Yorkshire area. North Yorkshire County Council disclosed some of the information and requested other information under the exceptions for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)) and interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f)). The Commissioner’s decision is that North Yorkshire County Council has failed to demonstrate that the exceptions in regulation 12(5)(e) and regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information (excluding personal data) to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View North Yorkshire County Council
19 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding abuse and hate crimes that have been ignored and how many people are paid £52,000 per year or more. The Commissioner considers that this request relates to the same matter as a previous decision notice and therefore the analysis and conclusions reached in that previous notice are applicable in this instance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply the vexatious exclusion to this request. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Oldham Council
18 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Hywel Dda University Health Board (HDUHB) information regarding the effects of the Meningitis ACWY one off catch-up vaccination programme on individuals of a certain age. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HDUHB has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in the handling of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Hywel Dda University Health Board
18 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested statistical information relating to applications made by Peterborough City Council held by the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) ultimately confirmed that it held information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it citing section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied section 12(1) and that there is no breach of section 16(1) of the FOIA (duty to provide advice and assistance). She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
18 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to members of local authorities who were also members of other organisations which may lead to a conflict of interest. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Greenwich (the council) does not hold the information requested and has complied with its obligations under section 1 (right of access to information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
18 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the diary of Dame Julie Mellor, former Ombudsman of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). The Commissioner’s decision is that PHSO has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner also finds that PHSO has not complied with its obligations under section 1. PHSO should now review the information provided to the Commissioner and provide a fresh response to the complainant. 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; FOI 10
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
17 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a contract between West Felton Parish Council (the Council) and Greenfingers Groundforce Ltd. The Council refused to comply with the request for information as it deemed the request to be vexatious in accordance with section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the requested information. She also considers that the Council was not obliged to issue a refusal notice in respect of the request, in accordance with 17(6) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
17 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report done on behalf of the council by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The council said that it does not hold a copy of the final copy of the report, but said that it had found a draft copy of a presentation linked to the report. Its initial argument was that this information had not been requested by the complainant, but in the event that the Commissioner disagreed with this it argued that section 36(2) would be applicable. The Commissioner’s decision is that council was correct to apply section 36 to the information however the public interest in the exemption being maintained does not outweigh that in the information being disclosed. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: To disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View York City Council
17 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to vehicle registration numbers. The Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) 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 DVLA 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 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
17 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the distribution of funds following the dissolution of a charity. The Charity Commission relied on the exemption at section 41 of the FOIA (information provided in confidence) to withhold the information. The Information Commissioner’s (“the Commissioner’s”) decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied the exemption and she does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View The Charity Commission
17 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a position he says was created and also information about its staffing arrangements. North West London Clinical Commissioning Groups (“NWLCCG”) has failed to respond to this request within the statutory period. The Commissioner considers that NWLCCG breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in the handling of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS South West London Clinical Commissioning Group
16 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the interaction between DVLA and the Independent Complaints Assessors (ICA) in relation to a particular matter. DVLA would neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information by virtue of section 40(5)(a)(personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was correct to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
16 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding deeds of delegation. North Yorkshire Police explained that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Yorkshire Police was correct to state that it did not hold the requested information. However, she considers that North Yorkshire Police has breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require North Yorkshire Police to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View North Yorkshire Police
16 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Bridgend County Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to the Porthcawl Regeneration Area. The Council provided the complainant with some of the information requested but refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 43(2) (commercial interests) and s42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA as the basis for its refusal. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it was agreed that the request should be handled under the EIR and the corresponding provisions under EIR applied -Regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and 12(5)(b) (course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that Regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(b) are engaged and so was not entitled to rely upon these exceptions to withhold the information redacted from the disclosed documents. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compl
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Bridgend County Borough Council
16 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in respect of legal advice that Newport City Council had provided to one of the primary school’s within its boundaries. The Council refused to provide the information by citing section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Newport County Council was not entitled to rely on section 42 of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the complaint which does not rely on section 42 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Newport City Council
16 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to memorandums of understanding (MOUs) agreed with a number of public authorities. The Coroner’s Society of England and Wales (The Coroners' Society) has explained that it is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA. It has therefore refused to respond to this request under the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that The Coroners' Society is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA. She therefore upholds The Coroners' Society’s position and does not require any steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
16 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the departure of two individuals. The Kensington and Chelsea College (the College) 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 College has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The complainant also requested information concerning business dealings with a consultancy company. The College refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 41 (provided in confidence) and section 43 (commercial interests) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has correctly applied section 41 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; FOI 41
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
12 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested any reports produced by Defra on the Smarter Environmental Legislation review which began in 2014. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra should have considered the request under the EIRs not the FOIA. She has decided that the information held by Defra has not been appropriately withheld in reliance of section 35(1)(a). She also finds Defra in breach of regulation 11(4) in providing an internal review outside the time specified. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the “Smarter Environmental Legislation. Final report 2015” to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); FOI 35
12 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested minutes of the Byelaw Working Group of Cornwall Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority relating to The River and Estuarine Fishing Nets Byelaw. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cornwall Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority has correctly applied the exception for internal communications at regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
12 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the full names, positions and direct e-mail addresses of members of staff at London Fire Brigade. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Fire Brigade (“LFB”) has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0249 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View London Fire Brigade
12 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested email correspondence between South Yorkshire Police (“SYP”)’s previous Chief Constable David Crompton and South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office (the “PCC”) which relates to the Hillsborough inquests. SYP provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing sections 31(1)(g) and 31(2)(b) (law enforcement), 40(2) (personal information) and 21 (information accessible by other means) of the FOIA. The complainant disputed the citing of section 31 only. The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(b) to the withheld information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The documents considered to be in the scope of the request were itemised and provided to the Commissioner in a spreadsheet. There are four documents where SYP relies on sections 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement) to forego disclosure. However, SYP did
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31
View South Yorkshire Police
12 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about minors being allowed into the UK and discretionary passports from the Home Office. Despite the Commissioner’s intervention, by the date of this notice the Home Office has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office 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. She requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA. The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office