30 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a report produced for the then Royal Ulster Constabulary (the RUC) in 1980. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) confirmed that it held the requested information but stated that it was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was entitled to rely on section 23(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that PSNI failed to comply with the statutory time for compliance under section 10(1) and section 17(1). The Commissioner does not require PSNI to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2019/0219 Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 23
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
30 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request (‘a meta-request’) to the Cabinet Office for all of the information it held in relation to how it handled a previous request he had submitted seeking information held on the cloud based platform Slack. The Cabinet Office sought to withhold the information falling within the scope of this meta-request on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 21 (information reasonably accessible to the applicant); 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (c) (effective conduct of public affairs); and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that section 21 has been applied correctly and that the names and contact details of junior staff are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2). However, the Commissioner has concluded that although sections 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (c) are engaged the public interest in maintaining the exemptions does not outweigh the public interest in the disclosure of the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
29 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the leases and development of Queens Road Day Centre and Riverside Day Centre. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, Southwark Council has failed to provide a response to the request in accordance with the EIR. The Commissioner therefore reminds the Trust of its obligations under the EIR and requires that it either respond to the request in accordance with the legislation or issue a valid refusal notice under regulation 14.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Southwark Council
24 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested numbers of police officers who were employed with pre-existing drink driving convictions from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS advised that to confirm or deny whether or not it holds any information would exceed the cost limit at section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 12(2) and she also finds no breach of section 16(1) (advice and assistance). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
24 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested submitted a detailed and lengthy request to Kirby Muxloe Parish Council. Having initially complied with the majority of the complainant’s request, and following the Commissioner’s intervention in this matter, the Council determined that it should have refused the complainant’s request in reliance on section 14(1) of the FOIA on the grounds that it is vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request engages section 14(1) of the FOIA and therefore Kirby Muxloe Parish Council is entitled to refuse to comply with that request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
24 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Royal Holloway, University of London (“the University”) regarding student feedback on specific modules on the MSc course in Information Security. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) of the FOIA can be relied on in respect of the limited amount of information to which it is still been applied. During the course of her investigation however the University did agree that some previously withheld information could be released. The Commissioner therefore requires the University to disclose this information now.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
23 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Crown Prosecution Service decision not to provide charging advice regarding deceased suspects. The Crown Prosecution Service withheld the information, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) (free and frank provision of advice) and (ii) (free and frank exchange of views for deliberation) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service has applied sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner does not require the Crown Prosecution Service to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Crown Prosecution Service
23 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
On 18 July 2016 the complainant requested information about the guidance given to staff using the Ministry of Justice Mercury information system used in prisons. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice correctly relied on the section 31 (law enforcement) FOIA exemption to withhold the information requested in part 2 of the request and has disclosed the information requested in parts 1 and 3. The delay by the Ministry of Justice in responding to the request was a breach of section 10(1) FOIA (time for compliance). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further steps to comply with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0239 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31
View Ministry of Justice
23 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Wearside Women In Need’s funding from Sunderland City Council (the Council). The Council provided information of relevance to one part of the request but refused the other under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12(1) of the Act and has met its obligations to provide advice and assistance. The Council did breach sections 10(1) and 17(5) in the time it took to provide its response to the complainant, but as the response has now been provided no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 17
View Sunderland City Council
22 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the name and status of the author(s) of a Minerals Technical Paper, the person(s) who verified the figures in that paper, and name and status of the person(s) in the Planning Policy Group who is/are dealing with Site ME1965a. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kirklees Metropolitan Council has correctly applied the exception for personal data at Regulation 13 of the EIR. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
22 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the training undertaken and qualifications achieved by two members of staff at Devon Partnership NHS Trust (the Trust). The Trust withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied this exemption and she does not request any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal (EA/2017/0197)allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Devon Partnership NHS Trust
22 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested submissions and transcripts of pleadings relating to a number of cases before the European Court of Human Rights. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing section 32(3) of the FOIA (court records). The Commissioner investigated the MoJ’s application of section 32(3) and concluded that the MoJ was entitled to rely on that exemption to neither confirm nor deny holding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
22 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the diary of James Wharton, formerly the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse, for the period 1 January 2016 to 15 April 2016. Additionally, the complainant asked the Department for Communities and Local Government (“the DCLG”) for information concerning the numbers, dates and locations of any speeches, trips and visits, in London and outside of London, made by Mr Wharton during that same period. The DCLG refused to provide the majority of Mr Wharton’s diary on the grounds that its contents are exempt from disclosure by virtue of sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(b) and 35(1)(d) of the FOIA, and it refused to comply with the second and third parts of the complainant’s request in reliance on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the diary extracts for the period specified above do not engage section 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) of the FOIA, and whilst the extracts do engage section 35(1)(d), the public interest favours the disclosure of much of th
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 16; FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
22 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint he made to the Charity Commission about a particular charity. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(f) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2017/0189) allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Charity Commission
22 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the report of an investigation conducted by Lancashire Constabulary at the request of the West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner into certain allegations made against a former Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police; he also requested associated emails. The Information Commissioner decided that the West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner has applied the section 31(1)(c) FOIA (law enforcement) exemption correctly. In the light of her findings in relation to section 31 FOIA, the Commissioner did not proceed to consider application by the West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner of other FOIA exemptions cited. The Information Commissioner decided that in delaying a substantive response the West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner had breached section 10(1) FOIA (time for compliance) and section 17(1) FOIA (refusal of request). She further decided that the West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner had not breached the section 45(1) FOIA
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31; FOI 45
22 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the time, costs and staff involved in his dealings with Greater Manchester Police (“GMP”). GMP 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 GMP was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Greater Manchester Police
21 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust (the trust) to disclose the executive summary of the data protection audit report carried out by the Commissioner. The trust refused to disclose the information, citing section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(a)-(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust has appropriately relied upon section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 3(2)(a) and (c) of the FOIA in this case. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0204 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
21 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a variety of partnerships and communications between the University of Manchester and a number of institutions. The University has failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner considers that the University 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 the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The University of Manchester
21 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on operations carried out at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”). The Trust provided some information but refused to provide the names of consultants together with the number of operations performed and the locations of the operations on the basis of section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to demonstrate that section 40(2) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the surgeons who have carried out non-emergency orthopaedic surgeries, together with numbers and locations as set out in the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
21 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the North Barton Road Landowners Group (NBRLOG), of which the College is a member. The requested information included correspondence between the College and the consultants representing the group. The College withheld the information under the exceptions provided by regulation 12(5)(b) – course of justice and 12(5)(e) – commercial confidentiality. As well as the application of these exceptions the complainant was concerned that the College had not identified all the information falling within the scope of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has correctly identified the information captured by the request. Although the majority of the information withheld under regulation 12(5)(b) does engage the exception, some, particularly covering emails to the legal advice, does not. The Commissioner finds that only a very limited amount of the information withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) engages the exception, primari
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
21 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made 4 multi-limbed information requests to the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). Having initially found that all the requests were vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA the MPS subsequently revised its position. It provided some information and determined that it either didn’t hold the remaining information or that it would exceed the cost limit at section 12(2) of the FOIA to establish whether or not it was held; it provided advice and assistance to the complaint who did not revise any part of his requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS correctly concluded that either the information was not held or that section 12(2) applies; she also finds that it complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16(1) of the FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
21 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the Home Office interpreter present at an interview at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) on a specific date. The Home Office refused the request, relying on section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was not obliged to confirm or deny if the requested information was held by virtue of section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
21 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a petroleum licence permitting exploratory drilling, granted by the Department for the Economy. The Department provided some information and withheld other information in reliance on the exceptions at regulation 12(4)(e), regulation 12(5)(b) and regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was entitled to withhold information on the basis of the exceptions at regulation 12(4)(e) and regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose one paragraph on the basis that it falls within the scope of the request, and no exception has been claimed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Department for the Economy (Northern Ireland)
21 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multi-part request to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) requesting information about meeting the needs of older prisoners. The MoJ stated that it was unable to establish whether it held this information within the cost limit and therefore refused the request under section 12(2) of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s handling of parts (2) and (3) of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ misinterpreted the request and failed to properly establish whether it held the actual information requested at those parts of the request. Therefore it has not complied with the duty at section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA.The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant pursuant to the duty provided by section 16 of the FOIA. The advice and assistance should be given with a view to clarifyin
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
21 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specific social care records relating to a deceased person. Cornwall 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 section 41(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Cornwall Council
18 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for communications between the British Embassy in Qatar and the FCO concerning worker’s conditions on World Cup construction projects. The FCO 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, the FCO has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations. By failing to complete these deliberations within a reasonable timeframe the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO has breached section 17(3) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
17 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the withdrawal by Leicester City Council of Payroll, HR Administration and DBS services from Academies. The complainant received some information, but believed there to be more. The Council maintains that it has disclosed all relevant information it holds in connection with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all relevant information it holds, and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Leicester City Council
17 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all information in respect of a Community alarm service provided to her late father from the date of the installation of the new machine to 13 August 2016. The City and County of Swansea (‘the Council’) provided a significant amount of information to the complainant, but were not able to provide a copy of the contractor’s quality plan as it did not hold a copy of the requested information and concluded that the outside party did not hold it on its behalf. The Commissioner’s decision is the Council is correct to have stated that it does not hold this information for the purposes of the FOIA, as it does not fall within the definition of section 3(2)(b) of the FOIA. However, in failing to provide a response within the required timescale for a request, the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. Additionally, the Council’s failure to provide an explanation of the key terms of technical information originally provided to the complainant, represents a br
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 3
17 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of any reports or plans relating to the former Grove Park School in Wrexham which were produced in 2012/13. Wrexham County Borough Council (‘the Council’). The Council failed to respond within the statutory 20 working days prescribed by FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not respond to the request within the timescale for compliance. As a substantive response has been provided to the complainant, she does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Wrexham County Borough Council
17 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to student referrals made to external mental health care providers over a 10 year period and also a named Counsellor’s qualifications and contact details. South Wilts Grammar School for Girls (“the school”) withheld some of the requested information, citing section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that that on a balance of probabilities no further information is held (beyond that which has already been provided) and that the school has correctly applied the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the school to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View SOUTH WILTS GRAMMAR SCHOOL
17 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made three requests for information about meal breaks. The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Trust) refused the request under section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 36(2)(c) is engaged and, with the exception of one piece of information, the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the dates when the Gold Command removed the fixed meal breaks in October and November 2016.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36
View East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust
17 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a ‘clinical incident’ he was present at on 17 August 2016. Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) did not comply with the request, citing section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has applied section 14(1) of FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
17 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to building works and planning permission given for an extension/extensions at a particular address in Luton. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Luton Borough Council failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. This constitutes a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. She upholds the complaint but does not require any further action to be taken as a response has now been issued.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Luton Borough Council
17 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a series of requests to Natural England for information concerning the badger culls in West Gloucestershire, West Somerset and Dorset. Natural England responded by providing what it considered was the relevant information it held which was captured by the requests. The complainant has challenged Natural England’s position and has asked the Commissioner to consider whether there is additional material or data that should have been provided. The Commissioner has decided that on the balance of probabilities Natural England does not hold any further information. She does not therefore require Natural England to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Natural England
17 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested confirmation that an individual referred to in a piece of correspondence was named on a list he provided with his request. South Wales Police initially applied section 40(2) to the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation, South Wales Police stated that it considered the request to be vexatious and as such it considered section 14(1) to apply to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Wales Police has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the request. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View South Wales Police
17 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a development project in Teddington. The Commissioner’s decision is that at the time of the request Trinity appropriately withheld some of the information within the scope of the request in reliance of sections 41(1) and 43(2) . However, during her investigation the Commissioner determined that the public interest favoured disclosure of parts of the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
16 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Royal Borough of Greenwich (the ‘Council’) information in respect of an individual and the health and safety actions taken relating to pupils at a particular school. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 40(5) is applicable with regard to part 1 of the request. In regards to the remaining parts of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold recorded information falling within the scope of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
16 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Thomas Tallis School (the ‘School’) information in respect of an individual and the health and safety actions taken relating to pupils at this school. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has correctly applied section 40(5) of the FOIA to part 1 of the request. In regards to the remaining parts of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the School does not hold recorded information falling within the scope of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the School to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
16 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information related to named planning applications. Suffolk County Council (the Council) provided information falling with the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information further to that already provided. The Commissioner notes that the Council provided its response outside of the statutory twenty working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0193 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Suffolk County Council
15 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to Worth Matravers Parish Council for information about an applied speed limit. The Council responded outside of the time for compliance provided by section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
15 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of the ‘Development Management Plan’ Report for the ‘Hastings Local Plan’ from Hastings Borough Council. The Council disclosed information in response. The complainant disputed that the information disclosed by the Council was not that which was requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed the information which was requested, and has therefore complied with regulation 5(1) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the Council has complied with the requirement of regulation 9(1) by providing relevant advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 9(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
15 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the School of Oriental and African Studies (“the SOAS”) regarding its Southeast Asian Academic Art Programme (“SAAAP”). The SOAS disclosed some of the requested information, however it withheld some under various FOIA exemptions. The exemptions regarding which the complainant complained to the Commissioner are sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA. 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 outweighs that in maintaining the exemptions in all the circumstances of the case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
15 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about specific expenditure at Sevenoaks District Council (SDC). Some of the requested information has been disclosed, it is SDC‘s position that some of the information is not held and the remainder of the request has been refused by SDC relying on sections 12 and 21. The Commissioner’s decision is that SDC is entitled to rely on section 21 to refuse parts of the request and that on the balance of probabilities some of the information is not held but that SDC has not satisfactorily established that the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit and is not therefore entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse to comply with the request. Furthermore, SDC has failed to provide any advice or assistance to the complainant and accordingly has breached section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the requested information which has been withheld in ac
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Sevenoaks District Council
15 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) for copies of financial viability reports in relation to the redevelopment of the Central Hill estate. The Council provided some of the information but sought to hold the remainder on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality). The Commissioner has concluded that some of the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e) and that the public interest favours maintaining this exception. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that some of the redacted information is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0205 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View London Borough of Lambeth
15 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the University of Bristol for details of project licences issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The University refused to confirm or deny if the requested information was held by relying on the section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) and section 38 (health and safety) exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(3) and section 38(2), which provide for an exclusion from the duty to confirm or deny, are not engaged.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 38
View The University of Bristol
15 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a disciplinary investigation report. The Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust (the Trust) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ipswich Hospital
14 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a roofing contractor from London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”). The Council refused to comply with the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b), and has complied with the requirement of regulation 9(1) to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Lambeth
14 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a list of all street works carried out by South Staffordshire Water that started in 2016, which lasted in excess in 2 months, along with the dates of the works. The complainant has requested that the information includes the street name and the location. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Staffordshire Water has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: South Staffordshire Water must provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View South Staffs Water
14 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Camden seeking information about the Highgate Newtown Community Centre. The Council provided the complainant with a limited amount of information falling within the scope of his request but withheld the remainder on the basis of regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(f) (commercial confidentiality) of the EIR. The Commissioner is satisfied that both exceptions are engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining each exception.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Camden Council
14 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the University of East Anglia (the University) for marketing data. The University refused the request under sections 43(2) (commercial interests) and 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 44 did not apply but section 43(2) was correctly applied and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View The University of East Anglia