11 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes of the Department for Transport’s board meetings for the last 18 months. The DfT refused the request under section 35 – formulation and development of government policy. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the DfT release some information but also applied section 36 – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs to some of the information it continued to withhold. A small amount of information was also withheld under section 40 on the basis that it was the personal data of the attendees. The complainant has not contested the application of section 40. The Commissioner’s decision is that the only a limited amount of information can be withheld under section 35. A larger amount of information can be withheld under section 36. The information that can be withheld has been identified in an annex to this notice. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose all the information currently being withheld from the minutes apart
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 36
View Department for Transport
11 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about minors being held on police bail. While Greater Manchester Police (“GMP”) provided a response, it did so outside of the required 20 working day timescale of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to respond to the request 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
11 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made four requests for information to the Borough Council of Wellingborough (the council) relating to Sywell Aerodrome Ltd (SAL). The council refused these requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered them to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 14(1) to the requests, and has therefore complied with the FOIA. She does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0261 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
11 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of internal communications from West Mercia Police associated with a previous request he had made. West Mercia Police refused to provide the requested information, citing section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that West Mercia Police applied the section 14(1) exemption to this request correctly. She does not require West Mercia Police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View West Mercia Police
11 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the cost to prisoners of making telephone calls from within a named prison, also the differences in the cost of calls charged to different categories of prisoner. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice has now disclosed all of the information it holds that falls within the scope of the information request as section 1(1) FOIA (general right of access) requires so that she did not uphold the complaint. She further decided that, in delaying the issue of a response beyond the 20 working days statutory maximum time allowed, the Ministry of Justice had breached section 10(1) FOIA (time for compliance with request). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps to comply with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0242 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
11 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information put before the Solicitor General by Attorney General’s Office officials. The Solicitor General had decided that an application by the complainant for a fresh inquest into the death of his late mother would not have a reasonable prospect of success before the High Court. His request was refused relying on the section 42(1) FOIA exemption (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner decided that the section 42(1) FOIA exemption was engaged and was not persuaded that there was a compelling public interest in disclosure sufficient to override the inherent public interest in protecting legal professional privilege. She therefore decided that the Attorney General’s Office had correctly relied on the exemption to withhold the information. She also decided that the section 40(1) FOIA exemption (personal information) had been correctly applied to some of the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to comply
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 42
View Attorney General's Office
11 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted three requests to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about the procurement of a particular contract. The MOD refused to answer requests on the basis that they were considered to be vexatious and further that given its previous correspondence with the complainant it was not under an obligation under section 17 of the FOIA to issue a formal refusal notice to the effect. The Commissioner has concluded that the requests are vexatious and therefore the MOD is not obliged, on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA, to answer the requests. The Commissioner has also found that on basis of previous communications within the complainant the MOD was entitled to rely on the provisions contained at section 17(6) not to provide the complainant with a refusal notice stating that section 14(1) applied to his requests. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0247 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Ministry of Defence
11 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) asking for the price of the winning tender in relation to a particular contract. The MOD withheld the requested information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the information falling within the scope of the request is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2). Information Tribunal appeal ( EA/2017/0246) withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Ministry of Defence
11 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) about courts cases involving children who have been, or are at risk of, being radicalised or involved in terrorist activities. The MOJ provided some information but withheld the remainder, citing section 32(1) court records and 40(2) personal information of FOIA. Following an internal review, the MOJ revised its position; it refused to disclose this information under section 12(1) of FOIA as it estimated that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ applied section 12(1) of FOIA correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with the complainant’s information request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Ministry of Justice
11 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about court processes and procedures and highlighted a specific case as an example. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing section 32(3) court records and 40(5) personal information. Although following its internal review, the MOJ provided some of the requested information “in a general non-case specific basis”, it maintained that sections 32(3) and 40(5) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exemption is engaged because the request is not about a particular court case. She requires the MOJ to issue a fresh response under the FOIA to all parts of the request (apart from part 9) which does not rely on sections 40(5) or 32(3).
Exemptions cited: FOI 32; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
11 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a specified grant. The Home Office refused to disclose this information under section 12(1) of FOIA as it estimated that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. 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. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Home Office
11 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a concession agreement between London Luton Airport Limited and the London Luton Airport Operating Company Limited. Luton Borough Council initially withheld the information under the exemption for commercial interests – section 43(2) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for commercial confidentiality – regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Luton Borough Council wrongly handled the request under the EIR and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1) of the EIR and that it correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
View Luton Borough Council
11 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on undergraduate timetables for a medical course. The University of Manchester (the University) provided some information for the academic year 2015-16 but the complainant’s request was for information for the academic year 2014-15. By failing to provide the requested information the University has breached section 1 of the FOIA as it has not confirmed or denied whether the actual information requested is held. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to the request for the information for the academic year 2014-15.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The University of Manchester
7 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes of a meeting discussing the sale of the student loan book. The Department for Education (“DfE”) refused the request on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and 2(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied the provisions of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and the public interest favours withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
7 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to data about CYP autism spectrum disorder assessments (SCAMP) for the year to end August 2016. West Area Health NHS Trust (WAHT) has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that WAHT breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Weston Area Health NHS Trust
7 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a previous decision notice issued by the Information Commissioner and the council’s subsequent appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). The Commissioner’s decision is that Brighton & Hove City Council has correctly applied the vexatious provision at section 14(1) of the FOIA. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Brighton and Hove City Council
7 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Tate to disclose minutes of meetings relating to the Tate Modern extension project and the terms and appointment with Mace; the Construction Manager. Tate disclosed some information but refused to disclose other information citing sections 42 and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been considered under the EIR. Tate stated that if the Commissioner decided the request is EIR, it wished to rely on regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e). The Commissioner has considered these exceptions. She has decided that regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR does apply to the remaining withheld information under this exception. However, the Commissioner has decided that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR does not apply in this case. She therefore requires Tate to disclose all remaining withheld information, withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Tate
7 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to a previous freedom of information request. NHS England has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that NHS England breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
7 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information associated with the licensed culling of badgers. Defra has refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it is manifestly unreasonable in line with regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, by virtue of the cost of complying with it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is manifestly unreasonable in line with regulation 12(4)(b). She has also decided that Defra complied with its obligation under regulation 9(1)(advice and assistance) and breached regulation 11(4) as it did not provide an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
7 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about work on the amount spent from an Estates Technology and Transformation fund. NHS England has acknowledged the request but at the date of this notice has not provided a response. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it has not complied with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 14 February 2017.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
7 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the NHS England publication entitled “Next Steps on the NHS Five Year Forward View” published on 31 March 2017. NHS England has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that NHS England breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
7 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the travel and other expenses of Gary Lineker. The BBC said that the requested information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall within the scope of FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
7 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for a copy of a viability assessment report and an independent appraisal pursuant to a planning application for Wimbledon Greyhound Stadium. The requested information was withheld by the public authority in reliance on the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) and 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information) of the EIR. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(5)(e). She however found the public authority in breach of the procedural requirement in regulation 14(2) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Merton Council
7 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to accusations of bias and how they are handled. The BBC said that the requested information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall within the scope of FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
7 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (the “Council”) information relating to the Decant Policy for the Council’s regeneration programme. The complainant has asked the Commissioner to consider the Council’s reliance on section 40(2) (third party personal data) and section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA to withhold parts of the requested information. He has also challenged the Council’s redaction of some material on the grounds that it was not captured by the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) and section 42(1) of the FOIA were correctly cited. However, the Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the complainant with regard to the documents specified in paragraph 21 that she has found do fall within the scope of the request. The Commissioner also requires the Council to disclose the information contained within the documents specified in paragraph 39, which the Council agreed during t
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 42
View Kingston upon Thames Council
6 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about instances of abuse and hate crimes that have been ignored by Bury Council and the number of staff paid £52,000 or more per annum. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bury Council has correctly applied the provision for vexatious requests at section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Bury Council
5 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Strensham Court Lakes. The Wychavon District Council (the Council) confirmed that they did not hold any further information. The complainant considered that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wychavon District Council
5 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made an information request to Rochdale Borough Council (the council) for information concerning the costs of lamp post banners. The council initially relied on section 22 to withhold the information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council disclosed the requested information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that council has breached section 10 of the FOIA as the requested information was provided outside the prescribed 20 working day time frame.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
5 Sep 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made an information request to Rochdale Borough Council (the council) for information concerning the distribution of a specific news release. The council initially relied on section 21 to withhold the information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council disclosed the requested information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that council has breached section 10 of the FOIA as the requested information was provided outside the prescribed 20 working day time frame.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
5 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from English Heritage (“EH”) about meetings of its Blue Plaque committee. EH provided some information, but redacted parts of the minutes under section 36 of the FOIA (prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that EH has correctly applied section 36 and section 40 to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require EH to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View English Heritage
4 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Stratford-on-Avon District Council (“the Council”) regarding the views of two independent persons which had been submitted to the Council in relation to its decision whether or not to investigate a complaint about a named councillor. The Council withheld the information under section 36(2) of the FOIA: Disclosure prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(c) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0220 no right of appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Stratford-on-Avon District Council
4 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cherwell District Council (“the Council”) concerning the number of times the Council had not accepted the findings of the Local Government Ombudsman within a specific period. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0208 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cherwell District Council
4 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any complaints made against a named officer at Humberside Police. He also requested information relating to any officer serving with Humberside Police who had either incited or been accused of inciting, a police officer to commit perjury. Humberside Police neither confirmed nor denied holding the information by virtue of section 40(5) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Humberside Police has applied section 40(5) of FOIA appropriately. However, she considers that it has breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Humberside Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Humberside Police
4 Sep 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about students, parents and members of staff at Dulverton Junior School (the school). The school refused to comply with the request on the basis that the complainant did not provide it with an address for correspondence and because it was not possible to provide the information in the format requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request did not comply with section 8(1)(b) of the FOIA and that it was not reasonably practicable for the school to provide the information in the format requested. The Commissioner does not require the school to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0217 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 11; FOI 8
4 Sep 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HMRC about claims investigated by Concentrix since the commencement of its contract with HMRC. In Response, HMRC refused to comply with the request, relying on section 12(1) – costs of compliance exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse to comply with this request. She notes however that the response was issued outside of the statutory 20 day time limit and accordingly HMRC has breached section 10 FOIA. The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
31 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a number of university policies and procedures. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, the University of Salford has failed to provide a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore reminds the Trust of its obligations under the FOIA and requires that it either respond to the request in accordance with the legislation or issue a valid refusal notice under section 17(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The University of Salford
31 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistical information relating to segregation in prisons. HM Prison and Probation Service, part of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), has failed to respond to the request; therefore the Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has failed to comply with section 10(1) of the FOIA. Accordingly the Commissioner requires the MoJ to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
31 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a Ministerial briefing. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs provided some information but the complainant believed that one further document ought to have been disclosed. The complainant requested an internal review but the Department has failed to communicate the outcome of that review within the statutory time allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4)
View Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland)
31 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to plans to build a wheel park. Kirklees Metropolitan Council (“the council”) provided information but withheld some using the exception under regulation 13(1) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”). The complainant asked the Commissioner to consider whether the exception had been correctly applied initially. The complainant subsequently accepted the redactions but complained that further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that no further information was held. She does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
31 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Operation Kalmia from Staffordshire Police (“SP”). SP provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. It also advised that some information was not held but subsequently located this information and provided it to the complainant – he was dissatisfied with the content. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) of the FOIA is properly engaged. In respect of the late disclosure, she finds that this does fulfil the request albeit that its late provision is a breach of sections 1(1)(a) (general right of access) and 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View Staffordshire Police
31 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the companies or in-house departments commissioned by BBC Radio 4 to make each programme/series detailed in a particular list. The BBC said that the requested information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall within the scope of FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
31 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to sponsorship of the SMG by certain oil companies. The SMG refused to disclose some of the requested information, citing section 43(2) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the SMG has correctly applied section 43(2) to the withheld information. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Science Museum Group
31 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to payments to locum doctors. NHS England has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that the NHS England breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
31 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the sale of plots on Fulney Lane North, Spalding, Lincolnshire. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Holland District Council (“the Council”) breached section 10(1) of the FOIA; as it failed to respond to the request within the statutory 20 working day timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide a response to the complainant’s request of 19 October 2016.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View South Holland District Council
31 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Children’s Epilepsy Surgery Service (CESS) in England. NHS England has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that the NHS England breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
31 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the selection of applicants for the audience of Question Time. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0203 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
30 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about deeds of delegation. The Office of North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner provided links to information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Office of North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner should have applied section 21(information accessible by other means) of FOIA to the requested information. She considers therefore that it has breached section 21 of FOIA by not doing it. She also considers that it has breached sections 10 (time for compliance) and 17 (refusing a request) of FOIA. The Information Commissioner does not require the Office of North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0196 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 21
30 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the source of statistics used by the Secretary of State for Health in a speech promoting a seven day NHS. The Department of Health (DH) provided some information but explained that it did not hold other information falling within the scope of the request. The focus of the complaint is on information relating to the source of a figure of 6,000 for the number of excess deaths associated with admissions to hospital on a weekend. The Commissioner accepts that the DH did not receive this figure prior to it being provided directly to the Secretary of State for Health and therefore does not hold some of the requested information. However the request also seeks a copy of the communication by which the figure was provided to DH, regardless of whether this was before, or after the Secretary of State had received the figure. The DH has failed to satisfy the Commissioner that this information is not held. By failing to provide that information the DH ha
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department of Health and Social Care
30 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested project assessment reviews reports (PAR reports) carried out for the Universal Credit Programme (UCP) from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The DWP refused the request, as sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), and 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) were engaged and the balance of the public interest test favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP is correct that section 36 of the Act is engaged, but finds that the balance of the public interest supports disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner also finds that the DWP should withhold the personal data of individuals named in the report who are not at senior civil service grade under section 40(2) of the Act. In regards to procedural matters in the handling of the request, the DWP breached section 17(3) of the Act as it failed to provide the complainant with a section 36 refusal notice within such time as is reasonable. The Commissi
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Bury Parish Council (the Council) relating to the ownership of properties, whether certain individuals were under observation from law enforcement agencies, and whether certain residents had paid rent and council tax. The Council stated that the first two items of the requests related to the complainant’s personal data and so were Subject Access Requests (SAR) under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The Council denied holding any relevant information. The Council refused items 3 – 8 of the request under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and regulation 13 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) as the information was third party personal data. The Council denied holding any information for items 9 – 12 of the request. This was amended at the internal review stage, where the Council denied holding any relevant information to the entire request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of p
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); FOI 1