14 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) for a copy of an evaluation report of the Pilot Health PPP Advisory Facility. DFID sought to withhold this information on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 27(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d), and 27(2) (international relations), 43(2) (commercial interests) and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Department for International Development
14 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information about the Western Union Clandestine Committee. The FCO disclosed the information it held falling within the scope of the request but redacted certain parts of it on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of these exemptions and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0199 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
14 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning the burning of waste on farms and the number of reports South Hams District Council have made over the last 5 years and what the outcome of those reports were. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR in the handling of this request. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View South Hams District Council
14 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a recent promotion to Chief Inspector campaign from West Midlands Police (“WMP”). WMP provided most of the information but refused the name of a police force on the basis that it was personal information and therefore exempt by virtue of section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the WMP has incorrectly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA as the withheld information is sufficiently anonymised to take it out of the definition of personal data. She therefore requires WMP to disclose the information withheld under section 40(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Midlands Police
14 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the number of drivers prosecuted for failing to comply with their lawful duties to allow wheelchair users access to the buses. Halton Borough Transport Limited (HBT) has explained that it is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA. It has therefore refused to respond to this request under the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HBT is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA. She therefore upholds HBT’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 6
14 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all records relating to action taken on selling driver details. The Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) refused the request on the basis of various subsections of the section 31 exemption (Law Enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that DVLA has demonstrated that section 31(1)(g) with 31(2)(b) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/779/2019 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
14 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Governor’s and Committee meetings, and reports and papers considered at those meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that St John the Baptist Primary School (the school) has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) to the majority of the withheld information and regulation 13 (personal data) to the redacted information. However, the Commissioner also finds that part of the withheld information does not engage the exception at 12(4)(e). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information in document foi1, pages 6 -13, aside from the redactions outlined in paragraph 58 of this decision notice. 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 sectio
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13
14 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested that a Decision Notice be issued against Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) in respect of its breaching the time for compliance set out in regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
10 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Brightlingsea Town Council (council) which relates to a land ownership and registration dispute. He also asked for information relating to a ‘2001 booklet’. Whilst the council provided some information in relation to the booklet, it withheld other information under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The council claimed that disclosing this information would be detrimental to its commercial interests. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the council agreed to review matters under the EIR. It then withheld the requested information under the exception for the course of justice-regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
10 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report into a cyber-incident at Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”). The Trust refused the request on the basis of section 31 of the FOIA and later sought to also rely on 36(2)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied the provisions at section 31(1)(a) and (b) of the FOIA and the public interest favours withholding the information in the NCC report. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View North Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust
10 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to commissioning expenditure. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
10 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for all information that Carmarthenshire County Council (‘the Council’) holds in relation to a former landfill site. The Council refused the request siting regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR however it took longer than 20 working days to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR because it did not provide a refusal notice within 20 working days. There are no steps to take.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(2)(1)
View Carmarthenshire County Council
10 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request that related to correspondence, files, meetings, working methods and employees for the period 1 January 1998 to 13 March 2015 concerning the Council’s planning compliance with National Grid defined safety protocols. The Council responded to the request with some information and a refusal notice for the remainder; however it took longer than 20 working days to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR for failing to respond within 20 working days and regulation 14(2) of the EIR because it did not provide a refusal notice within 20 working days. There are no steps to take.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Carmarthenshire County Council
10 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between Kirklees Metropolitan Council and the Charities Commission regarding Clayton Swimming Bath and Recreation Centre. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by Kirklees Metropolitan Council under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA as under section 3(2)(a) the information is only held on behalf of another person. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0194 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
10 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”) regarding the ownership of a boundary at a particular location. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided the complainant with all of the information it holds falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
10 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested staff surveys. NHS England confirmed that it would release the requested information but, at the date of this notice, has not done so. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it has not communicated the information it holds to the complainant within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Release to the complainant the information that it holds that the complainant requested on 26 April 2017.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
10 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about work on updating NHS brand guidelines. 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 27 February 2017.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
10 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Highways England (HE) about Special Order movements to Dragon Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal in 2016. HE withheld the information it holds, citing the exemptions under section 41 (information provided in confidence) and sections 43(1) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that the exemptions under section 41, 43(1) and 43(2) are not engaged. The Commissioner requires HE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Release the requested information that it has withheld, after redacting individuals’ names in line with section 40(2) of the FOIA (third person personal data). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0202 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
View National Highways
10 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a meeting between Kirby Muxloe Parish Council, Sport England and others. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kirby Muxloe Parish Council has correctly applied the provision for vexatious requests at section 14(1) of the FOIA. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation as regards this particular request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
9 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested emails and other information relating to the Sustainability and Transformation Planning (STP) process. The public authority refused to provide the complainant with the requested emails, citing section 12 of the FOIA (Cost) as its basis for doing so. In relation to other STP related information the public authority refused the request citing sections 43(2) (commercial interests), 41 (information provided in confidence) and 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) as its reason for refusal. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to the request for emails. In respect of other STP related information the Commissioner finds that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA are engaged and that the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 36
View South Warwickshire University NHS Foundation Trust
9 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about whether a financial business stamped certain documents confidential when submitting information to the Financial Ombudsman as part of their investigation into individual complaints. The FOS refused to comply with the request under section 12 of the FOIA. The complainant subsequently contested the FOS’s refusal. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOS has correctly applied section 12(2). The Commissioner does not require the FOS to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0184 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
9 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested notes of a meeting between his neighbour and the London Borough of Lambeth in relation an extension being built at the neighbour’s house. The London Borough of Lambeth initially refused the request under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). It stated that any held information would be personal data, but neither confirmed nor denied whether it held such information. The London Borough of Lambeth amended its position at internal review to refuse the request under the EIR rather than the Act, as the information – if held – would be environmental as per the EIR. The basis of the refusal remained the same, so the London Borough of Lambeth cited the equivalent exception in the EIR for section 40(5)(b)(i), which is regulation 13(5)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Lambeth incorrectly refused the request on the basis of regulation 13(5)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5a)
View London Borough of Lambeth
8 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the appointment of the Director of Radio and Education. The BBC 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 BBC 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 BBC
8 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested emails and other information relating to the Sustainability and Transformation Planning (STP) process. The public authority refused to provide the complainant with the requested emails, citing section 12 of the FOIA (cost) as its basis for doing so. In relation to other STP related information the public authority refused the request citing sections 43(2) (commercial interests), 41 (information provided in confidence) and 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) as its reason for refusal. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to the request for emails. In respect of other STP related information the Commissioner finds that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA are engaged and that the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 36
View University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust
8 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Burton Joyce Parish Council (the council) regarding the 3G artificial pitch at The Poplars Sports Ground. The council provided some information but withheld some on the basis that it was commercially sensitive and therefore section 43 applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to engage section 43 to the withheld information. She therefore requires the council to disclose the withheld information. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
8 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the council to disclose all emails from the Head of Parking Services’ email account over a 6 month period which contain both the words “PCN” and “target” and “PCN” and “bonus”. The council refused to comply with the request citing section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) of the FOIA does not apply in this case. The Commissioner therefore requires the council to issue a fresh response under the FOIA which does not rely on section 14(1). Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2017/0198) dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
8 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from North Norfolk District Council (“the council”) in connection with a planning application. He asked to know which restrictive covenants were considered to be unenforceable by the council and how the council justified its ownership of a particular area of land. The council said that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”). However, she accepts that the information was not held. There are no steps to take.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View North Norfolk District Council
7 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about West Midlands Police’s arrangements for investigating fraud and economic crime. West Midlands Police cited section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Midlands Police was entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request and that it discharged its obligations under section 16(1) (advice and assistance).
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View West Midlands Police
7 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Hoylake Golf Course Project. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council withheld the information under the exceptions for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)) and commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold some of the requested information but failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to Disclose pages 43-146 of the Private Document Pack. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0191 disposed of by consent order.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Wirral Council
7 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about offenders who absconded from Ford Open Prison and any temporary release failures. The Ministry of Justice disclosed some information and withheld the remainder, citing the section 40(2) (personal data) exemption of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) of FOIA applies to all of the withheld information. However, she considers that the Ministry of Justice has breached sections 10 (time for compliance) and 17 (refusal of a request) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View Ministry of Justice
7 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from The Academy Grimsby a complete copy of the school’s a policy and procedures relating to the school’s receipts of complaints from parents/guardians about the conduct of other pupils at the school. The school has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the school has breached section 10 (1) time for compliance in the handling of this request. The Commissioner does not require the school to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
7 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy a review into the way the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) handled complaints about a named midwife together with the cost of producing the review. The NMC provided the information on its cost, but withheld the actual review under the exemptions provided by section 42 – legal professional privilege and section 40(2) - third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NMC is entitled to rely on section 42 to withhold the review in its entirety. She has not therefore gone on to look at the application of section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter. Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2017/0192) withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View NMC
7 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the death of a British citizen, Bilal Ahmed, in Kashmir in 2000. The Home Office 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) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 12(2) in relation to the request but that it breached section 16(1) of the FOIA (duty to provide advice and assistance) in failing to provide reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
7 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Serious Fraud Office’s (SFO) Proceeds of Crime Risk Register. The complainant alleged that the SFO breached its duty to provide advice and assistance to him when handling the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that SFO did not breach its duty to provide advice and assistance within the meaning of section 16 of the FOIA in its handling of the request. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Serious Fraud Office
7 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Weymouth College (the College) information relating to all transaction details (procurement card) carried out by the Principal during a three year period. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College was not entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner requires the College to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1). The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
7 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants submitted a request to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) for details of two clinicians who had reported to the PHSO in connection with its investigation of a complaint about a medical trust. The complainant had previously received a redacted copy of the reports. The PHSO refused the request, citing as its basis for doing so the exemptions provided by sections 44 (statutory prohibitions) and 40(2) (third party personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has determined that section 44 was applied correctly and does not therefore require any steps to be taken in response to this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 44
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
7 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the details of compensation payments made to third parties by Thanet District Council following a 2014 High Court judgement which found that the Council acted unlawfully in imposing a ban in 2012 on livestock shipments from the Port of Ramsgate. The Council provided the complainant with information as to the total amount of compensation paid and the legal costs of such settlements but withheld the individual settlement amounts and the identities of the compensated parties under sections 41(1)(information provided in confidence) and 38(1)(health and safety). During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed to the complainant the individual compensation payments made to five parties who reached out-of-court settlements with the Council but maintained section 41(1) to the identities of those parties. The Council also applied section 43(2)(prejudice to commercial interests) to the withheld information but later withdrew r
View Thanet District Council
3 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about discharge consents relating to the Whitburn sewage system. Northumbrian Water has refused to comply with the requests under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable requests) and considers the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests are manifestly unreasonable by virtue of being vexatious, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0195 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Northumbrian Water
3 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
In two associated requests, the complainant has requested information about an Article 4 Direction and communications between Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) staff. LBKC has told the complainant that it does not hold the information he has requested but has directed him to where related information is already published. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBKC does not hold the specific information the complainant has requested and that regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applies to the complainant’s two requests. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
3 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on complaints and reports submitted to the Department for Education (“the DfE”) regarding a specific Prep School and related Senior School. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has appropriately withheld some of the requested information in reliance of sections 31(1), 36(2)(b)(i) & (ii) and (c) and section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Department for Education
3 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a decision to publish particular figures. The Department for Education (DfE) has released information within the scope of the request and its position is that its response fully addresses the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfE has released information that addresses the request; that particular information DfE has withheld does not fall within the scope of the request; and that DfE has complied its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require DfE to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Education
3 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to waste collection. Horsham District Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the FOIA exemption for prejudice to commercial interests (section 43(2)). During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld the same information under the exception for commercial confidentiality - regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that Horsham District Council has breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1) and failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld modelling information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
View Horsham District Council
3 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Transport Focus’s responses to requests it has received under the FOIA. Transport Focus has refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA as it says to do so would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the cost and time needed to comply with the request will not exceed the appropriate limit and that section 12(1) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires Transport Focus to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response under the FOIA which does not rely on section 12(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Transport Focus
3 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to confidential minutes of meetings of the Wakefield City Academies Trust (WCAT) Trust Board since 1 January 2016. WCAT withheld some of the information requested, citing section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing do. The Commissioner’s decision is that WCAT correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA and does not need to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
3 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about [1] an employment tribunal case, [2] the number of such cases submitted to Cardiff Employment Tribunal, [3] the number of staff dismissed, [4] public interest disclosures and [5] the number of staff offered ‘Compromise Agreements’. Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (‘UHB’) released information within the scope of request [3]. It said it did not hold the information requested at [1], [2] and [4] and is not obliged to comply with [5] as to do so would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that UHB has not complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA in respect of requests [1], [2] and [4]. The Commissioner has also decided that UHB has correctly applied section 12(1) to request [5] and that it was reasonable not to offer the complainant advice and assistance with regard to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance wi
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Cardiff and Vale University Health Board
3 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
In two requests, the complainant has requested information about a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Natural England has refused to comply with both requests under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (‘manifestly unreasonable’ request) and says the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Commissioner’s decision is that the two requests can be categorised as manifestly unreasonable in line with the exception under regulation 12(4)(b), and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0174 struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Natural England
3 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
In a series of multi-part requests, the complainant, on behalf of a local Parish Council, has requested information about a restoration programme at Harvestslade Bottom, New Forest. The Forestry Commission has categorised the requests as ‘manifestly unreasonable’ under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, by virtue of being vexatious requests, and has refused to comply with them. It considers the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests are manifestly unreasonable and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0209 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Forestry Commission
3 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about prisoners who have absconded from prison. The Ministry of Justice withheld the information, citing the section 40(2) (personal information) exemption of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice has applied section 40(2) of FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Ministry of Justice
3 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning support given to London taxi drivers and trainee taxi drivers from black and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds. Transport for London (TfL) released some information and says that it holds no further information that falls within the scope of the complainant’s requests that is not already published. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has released to the complainant all the information it holds that is relevant to his requests and, on the balance of probabilities, holds no further information. The Commissioner does not require TfL to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Transport for London
3 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about costs associated with a project between Stockton-on-Tees Council (‘the Council’) and ‘Spark of Genius’. At the date of this notice, the Council has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it has not responded to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 12 December 2016 that complies with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Stockton-on-Tees Council