2 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information relating to the ‘shortlisting’ of David Cameron’s resignation honours list. The Cabinet Office originally argued that the shortlisting process was conducted in Mr Cameron’s personal and political capacity and thus any information generated by this process would not be held by it for the purposes of FOIA. In a previous decision notice concerning this request the Commissioner concluded that any information generated by the shortlisting process would also be held by the Cabinet Office for official purposes. The notice therefore found that if such recorded information was physically held by the Cabinet Office, then such information would be held by it for the purposes of FOIA. The previous decision notice ordered the Cabinet Office to confirm whether any such information was in fact held. It did so by stating that no such information was held. The complainant disputes this position. Having investigated this matte
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
2 Oct 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held relating to the transfer of block booking arrangements at leisure centres between Hart District Council and Everyone Active. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1), 16 and 17(5) in the handling of the request. However, as she is satisfied that the council has now disclosed all the information that it holds that is relevant to the request, she requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Hart District Council
2 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office regarding escapes from Immigration Removal Centres. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached 10(1) of the FOIA as it has failed to give a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Home Office must issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the 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 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 Home Office
2 Oct 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to evidence that a named person had left their employment with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The IPCC provided the date of the person’s last day of employment and a screenshot of the person’s employment record but withheld further evidence, 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 IPCC has correctly applied this exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0245 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
2 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested any information relating to whether a particular piece of land was subject to the requirements of cross compliance and in receipt of Pillar 1 farm payments under the Common Agricultural Policy. The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) initially relied on Regulation 13(5)(a) of the EIR to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information was held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the RPA disclosed the requested information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the RPA has breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it provided the information outside the 20 working day time frame. As the information has been provided to the complainant the Commissioner does not require the RPA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Rural Payments Agency
2 Oct 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office relating to Border Force and their work on cruise ships. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached 10(1) of the FOIA as it has failed to give a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Home Office must issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the 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 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 Home Office
28 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of communications relating to the Hillsborough inquests from South Yorkshire Police (“SYP”). SYP refused to provide the information citing section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it also introduced reliance on section 31 (investigations and proceedings). The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP was entitled to rely on section 42(1). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View South Yorkshire Police
28 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Surrey Heath District Council (“SHDC”) relating to the sums paid to a successful bidder in a recent tender. SHDC refused to provide the requested information citing section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) as its basis for doing so. In correspondence with the Commissioner, it argued that it did not in fact hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that SHDC holds the requested information but that it is not obliged to provide it under the FOIA because it can rely on the exemption at section 43(2) as its basis for withholding it. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Surrey Heath Borough Council
28 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
immigration from the Home Office (the “HO”). The HO advised that it did not hold some of the information (which was not disputed) and that the remainder was exempt by virtue of section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy, etc). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 35(1)(a) is only partially engaged and, where it is engaged, that the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the HO to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
28 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the number of complaints and the nature of those complaints made against a number of named schools. The Office for Standards in Education (“Ofsted”) confirmed that it held information but refused to provide this on basis of section 33(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted has correctly applied the provisions of section 33 and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. She therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
28 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to suspension of Taxi and Private Hire Drivers licences. Transport for London (TfL) has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that TfL breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Transport for London
28 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the date that a named police officer was promoted. Dyfed Powys Police refused to confirm or deny whether it held the information requested by virtue of section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Dyfed Powys Police correctly applied section 40(5) to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Dyfed-Powys Police
28 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the ConsultancyONE framework agreement. The Cabinet Office relied on sections 14 (vexatious request) and 43 (commercial interests) not to communicate the requested information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office’s reliance on sections 14 and 43, as to the totality of the requested information, was incorrect. However its reliance on section 43 was correct as to a small proportion of the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 43
View Cabinet Office
28 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about childcare protection procedures. Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (‘the Council’) disclosed some information and stated that it held no further information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all the information it holds and, on the balance of probabilities, holds no further information relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
28 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about funding streams for the University Dental Hospital (‘the Dental Hospital’). Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (‘the Health Board’) provided a table showing funding information for the financial year 2014/15. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Health Board provided a table showing the funding information for the financial year 2015/16 and stated it did not hold any additional information relevant to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Health Board does not hold any additional information relevant to the request. In failing to disclose all of the information held within the statutory timescales, the Commissioner finds that the Health Board breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Cardiff and Vale University Health Board
27 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested briefings sent to directors relating to the inspection of a number independent schools prior to the inspection of those schools by Ofsted. The Department for Education (DfE) refused the request under the exemptions provided by sections 31 – law enforcement, 36 – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs and section 40 – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is not entitled to rely on the exemptions provided by section 31 and 36. However it is entitled to withhold the names and direct contact details of junior officials under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the briefing note and email exchange identified by the department as falling within the scope of the request, apart from the personal data of junior officials. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0254 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Department for Education
27 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested briefings sent to directors relating to the inspection of a number independent schools prior to the inspection of those schools by Ofsted. The Department for Education (DfE) refused the request under the exemptions provided by sections 31 – law enforcement, 36 – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs and section 40 – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is not entitled to rely on the exemptions provided by section 31 and 36. However it is entitled to withhold the names and direct contact details of junior officials under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the briefing note and email exchange identified by the department as falling within the scope of the request, apart from the personal data of junior officials. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0255 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Department for Education
27 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested briefings sent to directors relating to the inspection of a number independent schools prior to the inspection of those schools by Ofsted. The Department for Education (DfE) refused the request under the exemptions provided by sections 31 – law enforcement, 36 – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs and section 40 – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is not entitled to rely on the exemptions provided by section 31 and 36. However it is entitled to withhold the names and direct contact details of junior officials under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the briefing note and email exchange identified by the department as falling within the scope of the request, apart from the personal data of junior officials. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0251 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Department for Education
27 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested briefings sent to directors relating to the inspection of a number independent schools prior to the inspection of those schools by Ofsted. The Department for Education (DfE) refused the request under the exemptions provided by sections 31 – law enforcement, 36 – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs and section 40 – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is not entitled to rely on the exemptions provided by section 31 and 36. However it is entitled to withhold the names and direct contact details of junior officials under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the briefing note and email exchange identified by the department as falling within the scope of the request, apart from the personal data of junior officials. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0252 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Department for Education
27 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested briefings sent to directors relating to the inspection of a number independent schools prior to the inspection of those schools by Ofsted. The Department for Education (DfE) refused the request under the exemptions provided by sections 31 – law enforcement, 36 – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs and section 40 – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is not entitled to rely on the exemptions provided by section 31 and 36. However it is entitled to withhold the names and direct contact details of junior officials under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the briefing note and email exchange identified by the department as falling within the scope of the request, apart from the personal data of junior officials. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0253 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Department for Education
26 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the draft version of the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA’s) news release of 2 August 2016 along with e-mails discussing this draft up to and including the final version. The complainant also requested the FCA to release the e-mails which discuss the thinking behind and motivation for the news release. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request on the grounds that to comply would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner has also decided the FCA failed to provide the complainant with advice and assistance in respect of the remaining parts of his request and therefore it has breached section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the complainant with relevant advice and assistance as to what information can be provided within the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Financial Conduct Authority
26 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Blyth Town Football Club. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumberland County Council has correctly applied the provision for vexatious requests at section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Northumberland County Council
26 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury (HMT) for a copy of a file concerning information about the British Indian Ocean Territory, specifically compensation claims by members of the Ilois community living in Mauritius. HMT provided the complainant with some of the information contained within the file but withheld the remainder on the following sections of FOIA: sections 27(1)(a) and (b) (international relations), section 29(1)(b) (the economy) and section 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that these exemptions only apply to some of the withheld information and the remaining information needs to be disclosed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 29; FOI 40
View HM Treasury
26 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) for information about Adam Smith International. DFID confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but explained that it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test. To date, DFID has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations. By failing to complete these deliberations within a reasonable timeframe the Commissioner has concluded that DFID has breached section 17(3) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Department for International Development
26 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to a review carried out in relation to a concern about Children Services in general, including the issue of the relationship between foster carers and Norfolk County Council (the council).The council provided some information but refused the remaining under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data, section 42 of the FOIA – legal professional privilege and section 43(2) of the FOIA – commercial interests. During the Commissioner’s investigations, the council located and provided further information and maintained the exemptions already applied. It did however release some information previously withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The council also applied section 21 of the FOIA to some of this further information located – information accessible by other means. The council also advised the Commissioner of information falling within the scope of the request that it considered was not held by it for the purposes of t
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 3; FOI 42
View Norfolk County Council
26 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the suspension or cancellation of contracts with examiners. The Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) is the brand name of the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, a department of the University of Cambridge. CIE provided some information but refused to provide the remainder of 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 CIA is not obliged to comply with the remaining parts of the request under section 12(1). The CIA did not meet 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
View The University of Cambridge
26 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information composed of nine questions, about the Independent Police Complaints Scrutiny Panel, set up by the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria (“the PCC”). The PCC disclosed some information in response to the request and withheld some under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. It also said that compliance with one question would exceed the costs limit at section 12(1) of the FOIA and said that it did not hold the information requested in the remaining questions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PCC was entitled to withhold information under section 40(2) and that it was entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with one question. She also found that on the balance of probabilities, the PCC does not hold any further information. The Commissioner does not require the PCC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 40
26 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (the EHRC) reasonable adjustments for disabled clients and section 28 of the Equality Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EHRC has correctly applied section 40(2) (third party personal data) to the information withheld in part a) of the request. She further finds that EHRC does not hold the information requested at part b) of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the information identified during the Commissioner’s investigation, that is, the Outlook calendar entry, if it has not already done so, that is, the outlook appointment entry. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
26 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multi part request for information to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (“IPCC”) for information about applications made to the IPCC by the police to disapply complaints about them. The IPCC 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 IPCC was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
26 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the social care records relating to a deceased person. Worcestershire County Council withheld the requested information under section 41(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 has not identified a breach of section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0234 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Worcestershire County Council
26 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a request to Bradford Metropolitan District Council for various information about operational instructions, council tax, the sale and use of land, solicitors, and the actions of councillors. The Council has refused the request under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act and regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1) and regulation 12(4)(b). However, in failing to issue a refusal notice within the time for compliance the Council breached section 17(1) of the FOIA and regulation 14(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); FOI 14; FOI 17
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
26 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the resignation letter submitted by the former Chair of Pirton Parish Council. The Council withheld the information under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
26 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any complaints the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria (“the PCC”) may have received about the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police. The PCC 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 PCC was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
26 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multi part request for information to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (“IPCC”) for copies of all its investigation reports from the last five years, together with information about the costs, procedures and service complaints pertaining to individual investigations. The IPCC 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 IPCC was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
25 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) regarding national policy documents relating to footage from CCTV, hand held camera and body worn camera footage. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has failed to give a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The MoJ must issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. 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 10
View Ministry of Justice
25 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) regarding the number of prisoners found in possession of extremist Islamic publications not authorised for use in UK prisons. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has failed to give a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The MoJ must issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. 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 10
View Ministry of Justice
25 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) regarding G4S contracts to run youth detention centres. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has failed to give a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The MoJ must issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. 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 10
View Ministry of Justice
25 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested minutes of two meetings of the S4C authority. S4C provided some information but withheld other information under sections 36, 40(2), 41 and 43 of the FOIA. At the time of its internal review, S4C disclosed some additional information but continued to withhold other information. The Commissioner’s decision is that S4C breached section 10(1) by failing to comply with section 1(1) within the time for compliance, and section 17(1) by failing to provide a refusal notice within the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Please note that both English and Welsh language versions of the decision notice are included in the PDF below. Crynodeb: Gofynnodd yr achwynydd am gofnodion dau o gyfarfodydd awdurdod S4C. Rhoddodd S4C rywfaint o wybodaeth ond cadwodd wybodaeth arall yn ôl o dan adrannau 36, 40(2), 41 a 43 o’r Ddeddf. Adeg ei adolygiad mewnol, datgelodd S4C rywfaint o wybodaeth ychwanegol ond parhaodd i gadw gwybodaeth arall yn
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View S4C
25 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service (the ‘CPS’) relating to a number of deaths at a specified care home. The CPS refused to provide the requested information citing section 30(1)(c) (criminal proceedings conducted by public authorities), section 40(2) (personal information) and section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30(1)(c) is engaged in respect of the information in its entirety and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2017/0222) withdrawn .
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Crown Prosecution Service
25 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) regarding the new programmes Kaizen and Horizon used in prisons and their accreditation and evaluation process. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has failed to give a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The MoJ must issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. 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 10
View Ministry of Justice
25 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) regarding information about recalls to prison of offenders convicted of terrorism offences. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has failed to give a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The MoJ must issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. 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 10
View Ministry of Justice
21 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on Shepway District Council’s (“the Council’s”) decision to enter into a collaboration agreement with Cozumel Estates Limited to develop a new town. The Council provided information including the Development Agreement but redacted some information from this on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the regulation 12(5)(e) exception is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
20 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the GLA to disclose information associated with the 2012 London Olympics and the Compulsory Purchase Order of 2005 that was in place to assist its delivery. The GLA refused to respond to these requests, citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation it was established that one of the requests was a FOIA request. A fresh response was issued advising the complainant that the GLA does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner has reviewed the handling of this request and has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the GLA does not hold the requested information. For the remaining four requests, the GLA maintained its application of regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation again, the complainant withdrew his complaint for two of these requests. The Commissioner has considered the application of regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to the two remaining requests and she has decid
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5; FOI 1
View Greater London Authority
20 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the ICO’s intention to amend her guidance on the application of section 36 of the FOIA. The ICO disclosed some information but withheld other information, citing section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 42 of the FOIA is engaged and that the public interest in favour of disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption in this case. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0232 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Information Commissioner
19 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Sutton (“the Council”) in relation to an Executive meeting held in 2011. The Council provided some of the requested information, however it withheld part of the information (“the withheld information”). The Council cited sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA are engaged in relation to the specific withheld information, however the public interest in disclosure of the information outweigh that in maintaining the exemptions in all the circumstances of the case. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose to the complainant the information previously withheld under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View London Borough of Sutton
19 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) for information concerning a referral made to it by the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The CMA refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 32(3) (court records) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the CMA is entitled to rely on section 32(3) and is not obliged to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Competition and Markets Authority
19 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to an application for a Definitive Map Modification Order (a ‘DMMO’). The council provided some information however it applied section 12(4)(d) to other information, and Regulation 13 to details of the correspondence it holds (personal data). During the course of the investigation the council withdrew its reliance upon Regulation 12(4)(d) and provided further information to the complainant. The complainant however considers that further information must be held by the council falling within the scope of his request. The complainant also complained about the council’s delay in providing the information and its delay in carrying out a review of its response to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 13 to the addresses and the identity of individuals who provided evidence for the DMMO consideration. She also considers that it was correct to apply Regulation 13 to the identities and con
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 11(5); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
View Lancashire County Council
19 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office regarding documents from the file: Defence (Readiness) Regulations; Part IV Miscellaneous. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(3) of the FOIA as it has failed to give a substantive response to this request within a reasonable timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Home Office must issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the 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 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 Home Office
19 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office regarding costs relating to the General Registers online certificate ordering service. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has failed to give a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Home Office must issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the 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 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 Home Office
19 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office regarding pending ILR applications due to on-going criminal cases or investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has failed to give a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Home Office must issue a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the 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 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 Home Office