12 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Lambeth (“LBL”) information related to an earlier request. LBL refused to confirm or deny that it held this information. It cited section 40(5) (unfair use of personal data) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBL was entitled to rely on section 40(5) as its basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0235 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View London Borough of Lambeth
12 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant is a solicitor, whose charity client is said to be the residuary beneficiary named in a deceased person’s will. The deceased person had, at some time, been under the care of Sunderland City Council (SCC).
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Sunderland City Council
12 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested minutes of meeting and other information about the Estate Regeneration Board in Lambeth. The London Borough of Lambeth (“LBL”) initially treated this as an FOIA request and refused under section 21 (information accessible by other means) and section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of that legislation. It upheld this at internal review. During the Commissioner’s investigation, it acknowledged that the request should have been dealt with under the EIR because it was a request for environmental information. However, it argued that it was not obliged to comply with the request by virtue of regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request due to the cost of compliance). The Commissioner’s decision is that LBL is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) as its basis for refusing to comply with the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Lambeth
11 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested searches held in a search register. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Mercia Police has applied section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA appropriately. However, the Commissioner considers that West Mercia Police has breached section 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 10; FOI 14
View West Mercia Police
11 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to complaints of bullying made against staff and councillors from Spennymoor Town Council (the Council). The Council refused the request under section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), although it did not specify which subsection it was relying on. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether any relevant information is held in reliance on section 40(5)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is also that the Council breached section 17(1) of the Act because it did not specify the relevant subsection of section 40 when it refused the complainant’s request. However, as this notice informs the complainant of the relevant subsection, no steps are required by the Council.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
11 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the monitoring and inspection of highways from Surrey County Council (the Council). The Council refused the complainant’s request as manifestly unreasonable as per regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Council also found that the balance of the public interest test favoured maintaining the exception. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly refused the request as manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner also found that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it failed to respond to two of the complainant’s requests within 20 working days, and that the Council breached regulation 11(4) as it did not issue its internal review to the complainant’s requests within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to provide a response to the complainant’s requests which is not a refusal under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Surrey County Council
10 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information contained in an email which was sent to the Minister of State for Trade Policy, Greg Hands MP from a US company and which formed the basis of a tweet sent by the Minister. The Department for International Trade refused the request, citing the exemption at section 43(2)(prejudice to commercial interests). Having investigated the Department for International Trade’s application of section 43(2), the Commissioner has found that the Department for International Trade wrongly applied the exemption to the requested information. However, as the Department for International Trade voluntarily disclosed a copy of the email to the complainant during the Commissioner’s investigation, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for International Trade
10 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of the underspend of public money allocated to council tax support and discretionary council tax support hardship fund for 2012 to 2016. The Commissioner’s decision is that Plymouth City Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by falling to respond to the request within the statutory time limit of 20 working days. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Plymouth City Council
10 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested minutes of the closed meetings of the Sheffield Executive Board and the Sheffield City Partnership Board. The public authority withheld the minutes in reliance on the exemption contained at section 41(1) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was not entitled to rely on this exemption ordered the withheld minutes disclosed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Sheffield City Council
10 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the report from 2012, for a residential address in Birmingham, which states and details that the property meets the Birmingham Empty Property Repairs standard. Birmingham City Council provided some information however the complainant considered that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council does not hold any further information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Birmingham City Council
10 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about GMP’s communications with Jewish groups, the Israeli government and its representatives and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Greater Manchester Police (“GMP”) initially said that it did not hold any relevant information. It revised its position at internal review, providing such information as it did hold. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to disclose the information it held within the statutory timescale, GMP breached section 10(1) 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
10 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested access to information held in the BBC Archives in Reading. The BBC initially withheld the information under the derogation, but during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the BBC cited section 37(1)(ac), the exemption relating to communications with other members of the Royal Family. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC correctly applied section 37(1)(ac) in this case. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View BBC
10 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the LGO to disclose a copy of its determination in a particular case. The LGO refused to disclose the information citing section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the LGO has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA in this case. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
9 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the disciplinary history of three named police officers. Gloucestershire Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny whether it held the information described in the request, citing the exemption at section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Gloucestershire Constabulary was entitled to apply section 40(5). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Gloucestershire Constabulary
9 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Mersey Gateway Bridge. Department for Transport (DfT) released information within the scope of one of the requests and says it holds no further relevant information. DfT said information that it holds that is within the scope of two of the requests is exempt from release under section 42 of the FOIA as it attracts legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that: DfT does not hold further information within the scope of request 4 and has complied with section 1(1) with regard to this request. The information DfT holds that is within the scope of requests 1 and 2 is exempt from release under section 42(1), with the public interest favouring maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 42
View Department for Transport
9 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report about allegations that during the 1970s a serial killer was responsible for the deaths of several people on the London Underground. British Transport Police (BTP) refused the request on the grounds that the information it held was exempt from disclosure under sections 30(1) and 30(2) (investigations and proceedings), and section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that BTP was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View British Transport Police
9 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a pay review and to date he has not received a response. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days and has therefore beached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The public authority must now issue a response to the request under FOIA. 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 Information 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 10
View BBC
9 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an investigation Durham Police was asked to conduct on behalf of North Yorkshire Police in 2013. Durham Police refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it was vexatious within the meaning of section 14(1) of the FOIA. The complainant also voiced concerns that Durham Police had not responded to the request “promptly” and had therefore breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner found that the request was not vexatious and therefore that Durham Police was not entitled to refuse to comply with it under section 14(1) of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner found no breach of section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires Durham Police to issue a fresh response to the request, which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Durham Constabulary
9 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for a copy of the most recent version of its Housing Revenue Account business plan. The plan was withheld by the public authority in reliance on the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was not entitled to rely on either exception.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e)
View London Borough of Lambeth
5 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information which was supplied to Cambridge City Council’s Legal Team and which concerns the property where the complainant lives. The information relates to attempts made by the Council to resolve matters in respect of compliance with Building Regulations and possible proceedings under Section 36(6) of the Building Act 1984. The Council has confirmed that it holds 6 documents which fall within the scope of the complainant’s request. It has withheld 5 of these documents in reliance on section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA and 1 document in reliance on section 21. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridge City Council has correctly applied the exemptions provided by sections 31(1)(g) and 21 of the FOIA. It is therefore entitled to continue to withhold the documents which the complainant seeks.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 31
View Cambridge City Council
5 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on a proposed new road from Warwick District Council (the Council). The Council refused to provide the requested information citing the exception at regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged but, in the specific circumstances of this case, the public interest in disclosure of the requested information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner also finds that the Council did not make all information held falling within the scope of the request available to the complainant in response to his request. She also finds the Council in breach of regulation 11(4) as it did not provide the complainant with the outcome of its internal review within the 40 working day statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with an unredacted copy of the requested information. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar d
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Warwick District Council
5 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request to Warwickshire County Council (the Council) for information on a proposed new road. The Council refused to provide the requested information and cited regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not provided persuasive arguments to engage regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner considers that in the specific circumstances of this case, regulation 12(4)(b) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b). 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: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Warwickshire County Council
5 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the handling of private and confidential personal data. NHS England failed to respond to this request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner considers that NHS England breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
5 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department of Health (DoH) for information related to meetings with Ian Cumming, the Chief Executive of Health Education England. The DoH disclosed some information falling within the scope of the request under but withheld some information under the section 35(1)(a) (policy formulation and development), section 35(1)(d) (operation of ministerial private office) and section 40(2) (personal information) exemptions. During the course of the investigation it disclosed some further information to the complainant and confirmed that rather than section 35, it was now seeking to rely on the section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs etc) exemption to withhold the remaining undisclosed information. The Commissioner has decided that the remaining withheld information is exempt under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Department of Health and Social Care
5 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on private hire operators in London including the number of vehicles registered with each one. Transport for London (TfL) refused to provide this information on the basis of section 41 and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has correctly applied the provisions of section 41 to withhold the information and she requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Transport for London
5 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a letter sent to them by the council regarding a planning application. Kent County Council initially refused the request under the exemption for Legal Professional Privilege – section 42 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it reconsidered the request under the EIR and applied the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent County Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and 14 of the EIR and, correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13; EIR 5(1)
View Kent County Council
5 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from NHS England information regarding the costs connected with the development of the NHS Identity Research Document. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in the handling of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
5 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a particular housing file. London Borough of Lambeth Council (LBL) has refused to comply with the request which it says is vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0265 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/634/2019 PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View London Borough of Lambeth
5 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a contract for day care provision. Northamptonshire County Council initially stated that the information was not held but subsequently disclosed the information during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northamptonshire County Council failed to disclose the requested information within the statutory time limit and breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Northamptonshire County Council
5 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made three separate requests for copies of correspondence between the Department for Transport and Devon County Council (the council). The council responded that the information was not held. The complainant was not satisfied with the council’s response to two of the three requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the information is not held for those two requests. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Devon County Council
5 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a three part request about an assessment (the “Assessment”) which was undertaken in connection with two criminal investigations by Staffordshire Police (“SP”). In respect of part (1) of the request, SP disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing the exemptions at sections 40(2)(personal information) and 31(1)(a), (b) and (g) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. In respect of parts (2) and (3), SP failed to provide a response. The Commissioner’s decision is that SP was entitled to rely on the exemptions cited in part (1) of the request; however, she finds that SP should have cited section 40(1) in respect of some of that information. In failing to respond to any part of the request within the statutory time limit SP breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. Additionally, in failing to state whether or not its holds information in respect of parts (2) and (3), it breached section 1(1). In respect of parts (2) and (3) of the request the Comm
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 31; FOI 40
View Staffordshire Police
5 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on database design and columns in all of the DVLA’s databases. The DVLA refused the request, relying on section 12 of the FOIA as it considered that to provide the information would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 of the FOIA is not engaged in this case. She also found that the DVLA has breached section 16 of the FOIA as it provided no advice or assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with section 1 of the FOIA without relying on section 12 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
5 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a series of requests to the school. By the conclusion of the investigation the only outstanding matter was the school’s alleged failure to provide the personnel advice it had received from the council relating to its head teacher at the time. Ultimately the school argued that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner finds that on the balance of probabilities the school does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in respect this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
5 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request to Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (the council) for information on a proposed new road. The council refused to comply with the request under the exception in regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner has decided that regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged and that, in the specific circumstances of this request, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. She does, however, find that the council breached regulation 5(2) as it did not provide its refusal notice within 20 working days of the date of receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Solihull Council
5 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request to Coventry City Council (the Council) for information on a proposed new road. The Council refused to provide the requested information and cited regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) and, in the specific circumstance of this case, the public interest lies in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner finds that the Council did not provide adequate advice and assistance as required under regulation 9 of the EIR. She requires the Council to provide reasonable advice and assistance to aid the complainant in refining his request. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0270 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2)
View Coventry City Council
5 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about 999 calls where technician or emergency care assistant-only teams were the first or only responders, for particular years. West Midlands Ambulance Service (WMAS) released some information and withheld some under section 22 of the FOIA (information intended for future publication) and section 22A (research). The Commissioner’s decision is that, with regard to requests 3 and 4, WMAS does not hold the information on particular categories of ambulance call outs for the months June to December 2016. She finds WMAS breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA in this regard as it had confirmed it held information that it did not hold. The Commissioner has also decided that, at the time of the request, the information within the scope of request 1 that WMAS holds did not engage either section 22(1) or section 22A. WMAS was instructed to release this information to the complainant during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. If it has not a
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 22
View West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust
4 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the duties and responsibilities of sessional prison chaplains and payments made to them. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice relied correctly on the section 14(1) FOIA exemption (vexatious or repeated requests). The Commissioner also decided that, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, MOJ had breached section 10(1) FOIA (time for compliance). As a response has been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0260 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Ministry of Justice
4 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to credit balances in respect of all ratepayers within the billing area of London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (“the Council”). The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
4 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Sheffield City Council (the Council) relating to the location of trees that had been selected by a Council contractor for the implementation of flexible paving. The Council denied holding any relevant information. The Commissioner investigated the complainant’s appeal and found that the information was held on behalf of the Council by one of its contractors. The Council confirmed that its revised response was that the request was manifestly unreasonable as per regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and that the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. The complainant confirmed he wished to appeal against this refusal of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council incorrectly refused the request as manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Sheffield City Council
4 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Derbyshire County Council (“the council”) relating to a Flood Risk Assessment. The council provided information but the complainants disputed that the council had provided the information sought. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not in fact hold the information. He finds that the council breached regulation 14(2) and 14(3)(a) for not stating that it did not hold the information sought by relying on the exception under regulation 12(4)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”). She does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0250 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 14(3)(a); EIR 5(1)
View Derbyshire County Council
3 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Home Office information regarding the uses of Taser on children aged 17 years and younger in England and Wales during 2016, broken down by age. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) if FOIA in the handling of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
3 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information about the export of a particular ship to Nigeria. The FCO disclosed some information to the complainant but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (c) (international relations), 31(1)(a) and (b) (investigations), 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and section 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that sections 27(1)(a) and (c) are engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, she has also concluded that the exemptions contained at sections 31(1)(a) and (b) and 35(1)(a) are not engaged and furthermore that 40(2) section only partially applies. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0258 & EA/2017/0275 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 31; FOI 35; FOI 40
3 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a ‘Concerns in Audiology’ Report. The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) provided some information within the scope of the request outside FOIA but refused to provide the remainder, citing the exemption in section 41 (information provided in confidence). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
3 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to complaints made against a division of the Probation Service, including complaints made against a named individual. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed that it held some of the requested information but that it could not be provided without exceeding the costs limit under section 12 of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). It also neither confirmed nor denied holding information relating to the individual named in the request, citing section 40(5) of the FOIA (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly applied section 12(1) to the information withheld by virtue of that exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly applied section 40(5) to the remaining requested information. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
3 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to expenses claimed, and gifts and hospitality accepted, by the independent anti-slavery Commissioner, Kevin Hyland. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested information relating to expenses claimed by the anti-slavery Commissioner, citing section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). It stated that it did not hold information relating to any gifts and hospitality he may have accepted. The Commissioner investigated the Home Office’s application of section 12(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office applied section 12(1) of FOIA correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with the complainant’s information request. However, she finds the Home Office breached section 16 (duty to provide advice and assistance) of the FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
3 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Greater London Authority (GLA) for copies of all emails sent to, from or cc’ed to a specific private email address. The complainant believed that the email address belonged to the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. The GLA 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 GLA 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 Greater London Authority
3 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to prisoners who are maintaining their innocence. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to comply with the request on the basis that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit in costs set by section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly applied section 12(1) and found that there is no breach of section 16(1) of the FOIA (duty to provide advice and assistance).
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
2 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to ‘Prevent’ and a number of London universities. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HFCE) 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 Higher Education Funding Council for England
2 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested records relating to the election of trustees of the Therfield Regulation. In response the Conservators of Therfield Heath and Greens (the Conservators) volunteered information which they considered relevant to the request. However the Conservators went on to explain that they are not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and are therefore not bound by the EIR. They also argued that in any event the requested information was not environmental information and therefore even if they were a public authority they would not be under any obligation to provide the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Conservators are a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. However as the Commissioner also finds that the requested information is not environmental information the Conservators are not required to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1); EIR 2(2)
2 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office relating to any possible award of an honour to the late musician George Michael. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemptions contained at section 37(1)(b) (the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 37(1)(b).
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office