2 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 George Eliot Hospital
2 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 section 36(2)(b)(i) & (ii) of the FOIA (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 to the requested emails. In respect of all other STP related information the Commissioner finds that the public authority has correctly applied sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) to the withheld information and accordingly requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 36
View Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust
1 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) relating to whether families similar to his own have been placed in temporary accommodation and/or rehoused permanently by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to the request and has also provided the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 of the FOIA. However, the Council has not complied with the FOIA in the following ways - it has breached section 10 of the FOIA, since it did not respond to the request within the statutory timeframe. It has also breached section 17 of the FOIA in failing to inform the complainant accurately of its reasons for refusing the request within the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View London Borough of Croydon
1 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Complainant requested information from the Department for Communities and Local Government (the Department) concerning the decision to cease Cornish Language funding. The Department initially relied on section 36 to withhold the requested information. However, during the course of this investigation, it instead sought to rely on section 35. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was entitled to rely on section 35 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Department to take any steps in this case. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0185 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
1 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the person that was in charge of Eastham and Bebington District Nurse service in October 2015. The Trust provided the complainant with some of the requested information but refused to comply with part d of the request under section 40 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 40(5) is applicable in this case and therefore the Trust can neither confirm nor deny if the information requested at part d of the request is held as to do so would be a disclosure of personal data. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Wirral Community Health and Care NHS Foundation Trust
1 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Sheffield City Council’s (the Council) interactions with a named developer, and a quote for works, regarding an ongoing issue with a narrowed road. The Council provided redacted information citing regulation 12(3) ‘personal data’ of the EIR as the basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(3) to the redacted information. The Commissioner does not therefore require the Council to take any steps. The Commissioner notes however that the Council provided its internal review outside of the 40 working day timeframe and is therefore in breach of regulation 11(4).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(3)
View Sheffield City Council
1 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for correspondence between the VCA and Porsche that contains any information relating to type approval or emissions or 50 km/h throttle defects of nay 3.4 litre Porsche 987.2 vehicle. The VCA has now provided the complainant with the requested information but made redactions under section 40(1) and (2) FOIA and regulation 13 EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the VCA has correctly applied section 40(1) and (2) FOIA and/or regulation 5 and 13 EIR in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5; FOI 40
View Vehicle Certification Agency
1 Aug 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by The Gorse Academies Trust (TGAT) relating to the Gorse Academy Society of Parents Facebook group. TGAT’s response stated that the information was exempt as it was legally professionally privileged. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation some information was disclosed to the complainant and the matter was resolved informally, and so the Commissioner has not considered TGAT’s application of section 42 of the FOIA within the scope of this decision. The complainant requested a formal decision in respect of TGAT’s compliance with sections 10 and 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TGAT failed to comply with sections 10(1), 17(1) and 17(7) of the FOIA, however as TGAT has provided the complainant with some information and the matter has been informally resolved the Commissioner does not require TGAT to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View THE GORSE ACADEMIES TRUST
1 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a settled personal injury claim against his previous employer. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA in relation to one element of the request. The Commissioner considers that the rest of the request is exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps be taken to ensure compliance with the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0183 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 40
View Department for Work and Pensions
1 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested notes and minutes regarding a safeguarding investigation carried out by the council after the death of her father in care. The council responded by applying the exemption in section 41(1) of the Act (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply the exemption in section 41(1) to the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Coventry City Council
1 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Complainant requested information from the Department for Communities and Local Government (the Department) concerning the decision to cease Cornish Language funding. The Department initially relied on section 36 to withhold the requested information. However, during the course of this investigation, it instead sought to rely on section 35. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was entitled to rely on section 35 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Department to take any steps in this case. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0176 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
1 Aug 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (“RCVS”) regarding an Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) scheme currently being trialled. The Commissioner’s decision is that RCVS has correctly applied section 22 of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner does not require RCVS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
1 Aug 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information which he has termed ‘the Cherryman Papers’, together with a copy of minutes which he believes were received by the council from Tynedale District council relating to a village green association. The council directed the complainant to a county archive to obtain the information, and said that it did not hold a copy of a relevant Tynedale District Council minute. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely on section 1 as regards the second part of the request. She has also decided that it was correct to direct the complainant to the archive to obtain the information in the first part on the basis that section 21 of the Act applied. She has however decided that the council did not provide advice and assistance as requested by the complainant and so the council failed to comply with section 16 of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
31 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a multi-part request, the complainant requested information relating to the provision of food for Jewish prisoners. The MoJ refused the request, relying on section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to refuse the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. She does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0190 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Justice
31 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Darlington Borough Council about the status of conditions attached to a planning application. The Council refused the request under regulation 6(1)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The complainant contested the Council’s application of regulation 6(1)(b), and whether any further recorded information was held by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 6(1)(b), and that no further recorded information was held. However, the Council breached the requirement of regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Darlington Borough Council
31 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning instances where Penalty Charge Notices have been served to persons who were rightfully and lawfully parked. The Council has refused to comply with the complainant’s request on the grounds that it would exceed the appropriate limit provided by section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that Bedford Borough Council has correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to parts one and two of the complainant’s request on the grounds that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council failed to provide the complainant with advice and assistance in respect of the remaining parts of his request and therefore it has breached section 16 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Bedford Borough Council
31 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to meetings held in 2015.The Commissioner’s decision is that Delta Academies Trust (Delta) has correctly applied section 40(2) (personal data) 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 DELTA ACADEMIES TRUST
31 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council about heating and gas services contracts. The Council disclosed held information. The complainant disputed that further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all held information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Brighton and Hove City Council
31 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the types of records held by the Legal Ombudsman in relation to Residential Conveyancing Complaints investigations. The Legal Ombudsman initially cited section 12 of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Legal Ombudsman stated that it did not hold information relevant to the request. The Commissioner has investigated the Legal Ombudsman’s handling of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Legal Ombudsman failed to comply with its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA (general right of access) and breached section 16 of the FOIA (duty to provide advice and assistance).
The Commissioner requires the Legal Ombudsman to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response in accordance with its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA; and provide the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with i
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View The Legal Ombudsman
31 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of East Anglia (“the University”) relating to its decision making process and the decision to close its London campus. In its response the University provided some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 43(2) and 36(2)(b)(ii) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to rely on the exemption at section 43(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information and so does not require the University to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View The University of East Anglia
31 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to communications between senior figures within the Environment Agency (EA) and the Prince of Wales relating to flooding. The EA provided some information falling within the scope of the request but withheld other information under the exceptions provided by regulation 12(5)(a) – national security and public safety, regulation 12(5)(f) – interests of the person who supplied the information and regulation 13 – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(a) is not engaged. Regulation 12(5)(f) is engaged in respect of advice to the Prince of Wales from a member of his staff contained in one email. Regulation 12(5)(f) is not engaged in respect of information contained in the body of two letters that relate to advocacy correspondence. Neither can that information be withheld under regulation 13(1). Regulation 13(1) is however is engaged in respect of the names and contact details of staff from private org
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13(1)
View Environment Agency
27 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails sent and received by University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust’s (“the Trust”) Chief Executive relating to the Eleanor Grey review. The Trust withheld this information on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 36(2)(b) and 36(2)(c) exemptions are engaged but the Trust has failed to demonstrate the public interest favours withholding the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the emails and attachments held by the Trust.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust
27 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a complaint made against him. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertsmere Borough Council has correctly applied the exemption for third party personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA and, insofar as the information is environmental, regulation 13(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); FOI 40(2)
View Hertsmere Borough Council
27 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to purchases made by Liverpool City Council (the council). The council refused the request relying on section 12 of the FOIA as it considered that to provide the information would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 of the FOIA is not engaged in this case. She also found that the council has breached section 16 of the FOIA as it provided no advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Clarify with the complainant what time frame was meant for ‘past few years’. Issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with section 1 of the FOIA without relying on section 12 of the FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court purs
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Liverpool City Council
26 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Wealden District Council (the council) concerning legal advice sought by the council regarding the 5 Year Housing Land Supply. The council refused to provide the majority of the requested information stating that it was legally privileged and disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice. It stated that regulation 12(5)(b) therefore applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) in this case, and has therefore complied with the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Wealden District Council
26 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman about instances where a complainant had not received correspondence from an Advisory Committee. The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman refused the request relying on the section 14(1) FOIA (Vexatious requests) exemption. The Commissioner decided that the request was vexatious and that the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman was entitled to rely on section 14(1) FOIA to refuse it. She further decided that, in delaying the issue of a refusal notice beyond the 20 working days statutory maximum time allowed, the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman had breached section 10(1) FOIA (Time for compliance with request). The Commissioner does not require the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0165 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/1619/2018 permission to appeal refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
26 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of all correspondence in any direction between Government Ministers, civil servants and the Met Office on the subject of a named statutory instrument, a Met Office Report and its initial feasibility study. The Cabinet Office relies on section 12 not to provide the complainant with the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cabinet Office has failed to persuade her that the said exemption is engaged.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Cabinet Office
26 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked West Yorkshire Police to say if, during September 2016, they employed a named person. West Yorkshire Police relied on the section 40(5) FOIA (personal information) exemption to neither confirm nor deny employing the named person. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Police had applied the section 40(5) FOIA exemption correctly. The Commissioner does not require West Yorkshire Police to take any steps to comply with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0181 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Yorkshire Police
26 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about traffic and vehicular access calculations. Gwynedd Council (‘the Council’) refused to provide the requested information citing Section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied Section 14(1) to the request. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Gwynedd Council
26 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a deal between Peterborough City Council and Lucent Strategic Land Fund (“Peterborough Investment Partnership”). The public authority refused the request, withholding the information under the exemptions for legal professional privilege (section 42) and commercial interests (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Peterborough City Council breached section 1(1), correctly applied section 42 to withhold the legal advice from Pinsent Masons and, in respect of advice from Grant Thornton, failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the advice from Grant Thornton to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 42; FOI 43
View Peterborough City Council
26 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for all information held on the Slack channel ukgovernmentdigital.slack.com. The Cabinet Office initially refused the request on the basis that it did not hold the requested information for the purposes of FOIA. However, it amended its position and then sought to refuse the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) because of the burden involved in complying with the request. The Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office can rely on section 14(1) as a basis to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
26 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of the Integrated Waste Management Contract for Cornwall Energy Recovery Centre at St Dennis, Cornwall. Cornwall Council disclosed information during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation and withheld other information under the exception for adverse affect to commercial confidentiality – regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cornwall Council has correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(e) to some of the requested information and the public interest favours maintaining the exception in this case. She has, however decided that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(e) in relation to other elements of the withheld information. The council also failed to issue a refusal notice within the statutory time limit and breached regulation 14(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information identified in the confidential annex to this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Cornwall Council
25 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about agreements, licences and memorandums of understanding (“MOUs”) between the Home Office and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“KSA”). The Home Office disclosed some information about a particular MOU and also certain import/export licences. It withheld the remaining information in connection with the MOU under the exemptions at sections 24(1) (national security) and 27(1)(a) (international relations), and it withheld information about the import/export licenses under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. It also refused to confirm or deny whether it held any other information falling within scope of the request, citing section 27(4)(a) and (b) (international relations) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 27(1)(a) of the FOIA to withhold information about the MOU. It was also entitled to rely on section 27(4) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held fur
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 27; FOI 43
View Home Office
25 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested how much the BBC paid to Sandi Toksvig. 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/2017/0177 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
25 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the DfE to disclose a copy of the financial management and governance review findings into the Wakefield City Academy Trust (WCAT) and copies of any written correspondence between the regional schools commissioner and WCAT between 1 January 2015 and the date of his request. The DfE responded refusing to disclose the requested information citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), 36(2)(c), 43 and 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA applies to all the withheld information and the public interest rests in maintaining this exemption. She has however found the DfE to be in breach of section 10 of the FOIA, as it failed to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. Overall, the Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 36
View Department for Education
25 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) seeking information about its mobile enforcement vehicles (MEVs) that employ CCTV cameras for the issuing of Penalty Charge Notices. He specifically sought the vehicle registration number, location and start time/end time of the MEVs operated over a 18 month period. The Council withheld this information on the basis of the exemption contained at section 31(2)(a) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that this exemption is engaged and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View London Borough of Lambeth
25 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to leave taken by a particular GP. The Commissioner’s decision is that Park End Surgery (the surgery) has correctly applied section 14(2) (repeated request) of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. The Commissioner notes that a medical practice itself is not for the purposes of FOIA a public authority. Rather, each GP who provides primary medical services is a public authority themselves and has a duty to reply to a request in accordance with section 1 of FOIA. However, the Commissioner acknowledges that when an applicant makes a freedom of information request to a medical practice it is reasonable to expect that the practice will act as the single point of contact and process the request on the doctors’ behalf. For the purposes of this decision notice all references to the medical practice should be regarded as referring to the public auth
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Park Surgery
25 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence with a named person since 2013. Historic England (HE) confirmed that they did not hold any further information. The complainant considered that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that HE does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require HE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Historic England
25 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of users of email alerts. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
25 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a Visiting Professorship. The University of Huddersfield (the University) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemptions under section 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University 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 The University of Huddersfield
25 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the number of employees of Cardiff & Vale University Health Board (CAVUHB) who sat as lay panel members of the Employment Tribunal, together with details of employees who are trained investigating officers and the number of disciplinary and appeal hearings a list of specified staff sat in, or chaired, since 2012. In respect of part 1 of the request CAVUHB confirmed that it does not hold the information. In respect of parts 2 and 3 of the request the Board confirmed that the information was held, however refused the request, citing the exemption under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that CAVUHB does not hold information in direct response to the complainant’s question as contained in part 1 of her request. In relation to parts 2 and 3 the Commissioner is satisfied that CAVUHB was correct in refusing the request in reliance on section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require CAVUHB to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12
View Cardiff and Vale University Health Board
25 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) for a copy of the development partnership agreement it signed with Notting Hill Housing Trust in relation to the redevelopment of the Aylesbury Estate. The Council disclosed this document but redacted certain parts of it on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) of the EIR. The Commissioner has decided that for some of the redactions the exception is engaged and the public interest favours withholding the information. However, in respect of the remaining information the Commissioner has decided that the exception is either not engaged, or it is engaged but the public interest favours disclosing the information. The Council also breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to complete an internal review of its original response to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(3); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Southwark Council
25 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the London Borough of Newham (the council) to disclose all minutes from the Safety Advisory Group meetings relating to the London Stadium in 2016. The council disclosed some information but withheld other information citing sections 31(1)(a) and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 31(1)(a) and 43 of the FOIA do not apply and therefore the withheld information should be disclosed to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31; FOI 43
View Newham Council
25 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint he had submitted to West Yorkshire Police (“WYP”). WYP would neither confirm nor deny holding the information, citing section 40(5)(a) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP was entitled to rely on section 40(5)(a) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Yorkshire Police
25 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to correspondence, communication, proposals, and reports, both internal and external, between English Partnerships and the Homes and Communities Agency (“the authority”) to the present day. The request concerned land owned either by a particular company or by the authority. The authority responded to the request and provided some information but withheld other information using exceptions under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”); however it took longer than 20 working days to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority 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 Homes and Communities Agency
24 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information in respect of schools nearest to each postcode within Wrexham County Borough Council’s boundaries. The Council argued that the information was not held for the purpose of the FOIA as it would require a degree of professional judgement to understand and extract the relevant information from the records that it holds. It has also argued that extracting the information would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is correct that it does not hold the information for the purposes of FOIA 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.
Please note that both English and Welsh language versions of the decision notice are included in the PDF below.
Mae’r achwynydd wedi gofyn am amryw o wybodaeth ynglŷn â’r ysgolion sydd agosaf at bob cod post o fewn ffiniau Cyngor
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wrexham County Borough Council
24 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the public authority for a copy of two due diligence reports produced pursuant to the proposed merger of the public authority (Bury College), Bolton College, and the University of Bolton. The public authority withheld the reports in reliance on the exemptions contained at sections 41(1), 42(1) and 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold the reports on the basis of the exemption contained at section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0164 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
24 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Northamptonshire County Council about a complaint made to a contractor used by the Council. The Council disclosed information in response. The complainant contests that further relevant information is held by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all relevant held information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0168 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); FOI 1
View Northamptonshire County Council
24 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to financial and governance issues at Wakefield City Academies Trust. The Department for Education (DfE) refused the request under sections 36 – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs, 40(2) - third party personal information and 43 – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education is entitled to rely on section 36 to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
24 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about meetings held in respect of a particular investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The Commissioner’s decision is that, although it has complied with section 10(1) in confirming that information is held, and 17(1) in stating which exemptions are to be relied upon, by failing to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time period the MPS has breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. Additionally, as it subsequently relied on section 12(2)(cost of compliance), rather than the exemptions previously cited for delaying its response, she finds a further breach of section 17(5). As a response has since been provided, no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View Metropolitan Police Service