20 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from East Sussex Fire & Rescue Service (ESFRS), namely a copy of the Sussex Control Centre’s incident log for a specified incident. ESFRS denied holding the requested information. The complainant disputed that ESFRS did not hold the incident log. The Commissioner has found that the requested information is not held by ESFRS for the purposes of the FOIA by virtue of section 3(2)(a).The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service
20 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department for Transport (DfT) for communications between DfT ministers and officials, and Govia and Southern Railway. The DfT disclosed some information but withheld other information under the exemptions in sections 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43 (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36 is engaged in respect of the withheld information 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 36
View Department for Transport
20 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the University of Durham for details of candidates’ test marks for 11+ exams set by the University’s Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring. The University disclosed some of the requested information but withheld other information under the section 43(2) (commercial interests) exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining withheld information is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also found that the University breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) in its handling of the request but requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EEA/2017/0166 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/2539/2018 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View University of Durham
20 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested nine
Metropolitan Police files relating to the ‘Nude Murders’. TNA refused to disclose the requested information under section 31(a)-(c), 38 and 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 31(1)(a)-(c) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0167 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The National Archives
19 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about various issues relating to Pittington Parish Council. Pittington Parish Council did not comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Pittington Parish Council has applied section 14(1) of FOIA appropriately. However, she considers that it has breached section 10 (time for compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Pittington Parish Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14(1)
19 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics about adoption support provided by Cornwall Council. The Council refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The complainant subsequently contested the Council’s refusal. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12(1), and has complied with the requirement of section 16(1) to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0153 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Cornwall Council
19 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about an annual waste collection charge from Fenland District Council. The Council refused to comply with the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations. 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. However the Council failed to provide its refusal notice within 20 working days following the date of receipt of the request, and therefore breached regulation 14(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14; EIR 9
View Fenland District Council
18 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the number of pupils who have received funding for transport from Great Chesterford to Joyce Frankland Academy/Newport Free Grammar School. The Commissioner’s decision is that Essex County Council has correctly applied the exemption for third party personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Essex County Council
18 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any meetings between the Police and Crime Commissioner for Kent and local councillors during a specified period. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Kent (“the OPCC”) disclosed details of a meeting that the Police and Crime Commissioner had attended in his official capacity. It also said that he had attended three meetings on 22 December 2016 in a personal, party political capacity and that information about them did not fall within the scope the FOIA. Nevertheless, it disclosed such information as it held about those meetings to the complainant, outside of the FOIA. However, the complainant argued that the Police and Crime Commissioner was acting in an official capacity at the meetings of 22 December 2016 and therefore that any information the OPCC held about them was covered by the FOIA. The Commissioner has found that any information about the meetings on 22 December 2016 was not “held” by the OPCC within the meaning of
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 3
18 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Queen Elizabeth School (“QES”) regarding an arrangement between a member of QES’s governing body and a nearby primary school for the individual to assist the nearby school with a building project. QES did not provide the complainant with any recorded information until the Commissioner commenced her investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, QES has now provided the complainant with all of the information which it holds falling within the scope of the requests. However, she finds that QES has breached the FOIA in the following ways: within the statutory time-frame of 20 working days, it failed to confirm or deny whether information was held falling within the scope of the requests, and failed to provide the information which it did hold. Accordingly QES has breached sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 10 of the FOIA respectively. The Commissioner does not require QES to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
18 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the source code for a number of software packages and associated dictionaries. Bangor University (‘the University’) withheld the information requested under section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 43(2) to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Please note that both English and Welsh language versions of the decision notice are included in the PDF below.
Gofynnodd yr achwynydd am god ffynhonnell nifer o becynnau meddalwedd a geiriaduron perthynol. Cadwodd Prifysgol Bangor (‘y Brifysgol’) yr wybodaeth yn ôl o dan adran 43(2) o’r Ddeddf. Penderfyniad y Comisiynydd yw bod y Brifysgol wedi cymhwyso adran 43(2) o’r Ddeddf at y cais yn gywir. Nid yw’r Comisiynydd yn gofyn i unrhyw gamau gael eu cymryd.
Sylwch fod fersiwn Cymraeg a fersiwn Saesneg o’r hysbysiad penderfynu wedi’u cynnwys yn y PDF isod.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Bangor University
18 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the production assistance given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in relation to two television programmes (FCO ref 1135-15). He then made a request for the meta data relating to that request and has also requested documents relating to programmes aired by the BBC (FCO ref 0547-16 and 0548-16). The FCO has disclosed information in relation to one programme detailed in the first request and stated that it holds no information falling within the scope of the request as it relates to the other programme. It had refused both subsequent requests citing section 14(1) FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it withdrew its reliance on section 14 for both requests, disclosed the information in relation to 0547-16 and, following an extension of the public interest test, sought to withhold the information within the scope of 0548-16 on the basis of section 36 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that in relatio
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
17 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about passports. The Home Office refused to disclose this information under section 12(1) of FOIA as it estimated that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office applied section 12(1) of FOIA correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with the complainant’s information request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Home Office
17 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the Tarbiyah programme, an Islamic education course. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to provide the requested information citing section 31(1)(f) of the FOIA (law enforcement – the maintenance and security of good order in prisons). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ concluded incorrectly that the exemption provided by section 31(1)(f) was engaged in relation to some of the information. However, she found that the remaining information was correctly withheld on the basis of the exemption contained at section 31(1)(f) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - disclose the PowerPoint presentation and student’s workbook. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0233 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Ministry of Justice
17 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on how to appeal the imposition of a benefit cap. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) informed the complainant that it held no information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request beyond that which has already been provided. The Commissioner notes, however, that DWP did not confirm or deny holding the requested information within 20 working days and has, therefore, breached section 10(1) of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0171 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
17 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding a complaint against an employee of Salisbury City Council (the Council), and the tender process for the Council’s 2015-2017 Christmas Lights switch on. The Council withheld certain information under section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means), section 40(1) (applicant’s own personal data), section 40(2) (third party personal data), section 41 (information provided in confidence), section 42 (legal professional privilege) and section 43 (prejudice to commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that for the information relating to the complaint, the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(1) and section 40(2). For the information relating to the price bid by the successful company, the Council was entitled to rely on section 43(2). For the information relating to the tenders and the tendering process, the Council has correctly applied sections 40(1), 40(2) and 43(2) to the majority of the withheld informatio
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 21; FOI 40; FOI 43
17 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various items of information in respect of the Band C Council Tax exemption and the inspection of properties. This was following a previous request in relation to the Council’s policy on the same subject matter, which resulted in two previous decision notices being issued, (FS50472358 and FS50546033) and subsequently appealed to First-tier Tribunal. The first of which [EA/2013/0183], whilst accepting that there was no formal policy, maintained that the Council must hold some information within its records somewhere, with the second [EA/2014/0318] upholding the Commissioner’s decision notice that section 12 of the FOIA was engaged in respect of complying with the request. In respect of this request, the Council relied on section 12 for some of the information, and confirmed that it did not hold relevant information in respect of item four of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cardiff Council has correctly relied on section 12 of the FOIA in r
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12
View Cardiff Council
17 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from The National Archives (TNA) a closed extract with TNA’s reference PREM/3/139/11B/1, from the open parent file PREM/3/139/11B – Prime Minister’s Office: Operational Correspondence and Papers. Explosives. Tube Alloys. TNA has withheld this information under section 24(1) (national security), section 26(1)(a) (defence of the British Islands or any colony) and section 27(1)(relations between the United Kingdom and any other state). TNA considers the balance of the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information engages section 24(1) of the FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner has decided that TNA breached sections 17(1) and 17(3) of the FOIA because it failed to provide the complainant with adequate refusal notices. The Commissioner does not require TNA to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 24
View The National Archives
17 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a decision by Northumberland CCG to temporarily close beds at Rothbury Community Hospital and copies of Financial Recovery Plans and Transformation Plans. The CCG withheld information on the decision under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA and refused to provide the Financial Recovery Plan on the basis of section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG has correctly applied the provisions of section 36(2)(b) to withhold information on the decision to temporarily close the beds and has also correctly withheld the Financial Recovery Plan by virtue of the exemption at section 43(2) of the FOIA. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 43
View NHS Northumberland Clinical Commissioning Group
13 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes of TBGS meetings from 2013 onwards. TBGS provided some information but redacted some information under sections 36(2)(c), 36(4), 41(1), 42 and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the TBGS correctly applied sections 41(1) FOIA to some of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires TBGS to disclose all of the information currently withheld under section 36(2)(c) FOIA. It should also disclose paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20 and 21 of the currently redacted material within Minute G. It should also disclose all redacted material from Minute C. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0169 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 41
13 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of reports relating to investigations into NHS Shared Business Services postal services. NHS England has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that the NHS England breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
13 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking a copy of any correspondence between The Prince of Wales and the Prime Minister dating from 2002 about hunting. The Cabinet Office has confirmed that it holds some environmental information falling within the scope of the request but has sought to withhold this on the basis of regulation 13(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner has concluded that this information is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 13(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0172 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Cabinet Office
13 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a motoring offence which he allegedly committed from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny holding the information, citing sections 40(5)(a) and (b)(i) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was correct to cite section 40(5)(a). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
13 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the Otterpool development from Shepway District Council (the “Council”). It provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing EIR regulation 12(5)(e) - confidentiality of commercial or industrial information. After internal review, it revised its position and released further information. However, it continued to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) for that information which remained withheld. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) for that information within the scope of the request which remains withheld. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
13 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Royal Holloway, University of London (“the University”) regarding its decision-making process when individuals were nominated to the Academic Board in 2014. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request for information. However, it did not deal with the request in accordance with the FOIA in the following ways: it failed to confirm or deny whether it held information of the description specified in the request, in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA, and it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days, in accordance with section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
12 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application. East Hampshire District Council disclosed information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Hampshire District Council failed to conduct an internal review within the statutory time limit and breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4)
View East Hampshire District Council
12 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to two previous requests he had made about the status of some land and recording of telephone calls. Babergh District Council (the council) responded that the information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is not held. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal FS50633646 dismissed
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Babergh District Council
12 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust (the trust) to disclose the legal distance between, clear water pipes, foul water pipes and graves. The trust responded, advising the complainant that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust does not hold the requested information and so regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applies in this case. However, the Commissioner has found the trust in breach of regulation 5 of the EIR, as it failed to respond to the request within 20 working days. As the trust does not hold the requested information, the Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
11 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested the legal advice considered at a meeting of the Planning Committee of Amber Valley Borough Council (“the council”). He also asked some questions relating to the provision of the advice. The council said that all the information requested was exempt under section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”) although it later confirmed a limited amount of information about the provision of the advice. It said that the public interest did not favour disclosure. During the Commissioner’s investigation, information about the provision of the advice was disclosed with the agreement of the council. The Commissioner’s decision about the remaining request for the legal advice itself is that the request should have been considered under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”) however the information could be correctly withheld under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The public interest does not favour disclosure in this case. T
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 14(3); EIR 5(1)
View Amber Valley Borough Council
11 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants requested information from Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”) relating to parking restrictions on a particular road. The council said that the requests were vexatious and refused to respond using the exemption under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). The complainants asked the Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) to consider whether the council had correctly refused to respond. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly applied section 14(1). She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Barnsley Council
11 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to meeting minutes. The Commissioner’s decision is that Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (‘PHSO’) have correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) to part of the withheld information. However the Commissioner also finds that PHSO has incorrectly applied section 40(2) (personal data) to the remaining part of the withheld information. Finally, the Commissioner finds that although it has complied with section 17(1) in stating which exemption is to be relied upon, by failing to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time period PHSO has breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36; FOI 40
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
11 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the attributes of a number of catalytic converters. The Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) refused to provide the information, citing the exceptions provided by regulation 12(5)(d) – confidentiality of proceedings and 12(5)(f) – voluntary supply of information. During the Commissioner’s investigation the VCA also introduced the exception provided by regulation 12(5)(b) – course of justice. The Commissioner’s decision is that none of the exceptions claimed are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information that has been withheld under the exceptions provided by regulation 12(5)(b),(d) and (f).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Vehicle Certification Agency
11 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating an employment tribunal case. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has correctly applied section 41(1) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
11 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a Target Operating Model (‘TOM’) and Expression of Interest Forms (‘EOI’). The Commissioner’s decision is that Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has correctly applied section 21 to part of the requested information. In addition, she also finds that EHRC correctly cited section 40(1) and 40(2) of the FOIA to the information withheld under that exemption. Finally the Commissioner finds that EHRC has also correctly cited section 22 of the FOIA to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 22; FOI 40
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
11 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any complaints Northumbria Police may have received about its deputy chief constable. Northumbria Police 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 Northumbria Police was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
11 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Education Funding Agency (EFA), an executive agency of the Department for Education (DfE), for a copy of an internal audit report carried out on Collective Spirit Multi Academy Trust. The DfE refused the complainant’s request, citing the exemptions under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) (free and frank exchange of views), 36(2)(c) (otherwise prejudice effective conduct of public affairs) and 33 (audit functions) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(ii) is engaged and that, in all the circumstances, the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in withholding the requested information. Accordingly she has not gone on to consider sections 36(2)(c) or 33. The Commissioner does not require the DfE to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
10 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about arrests made of people aged over 60 in Staffordshire, over the last five years. While Staffordshire Police provided a response, it did so outside of the required 20 working day timescale of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As a response has been provided, the Commissioner does not require Staffordshire Police to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Staffordshire Police
10 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Pembrokeshire College (“the College”) regarding details of the College’s employment of a named individual and the qualifications of a student. The College provided some information but withheld some, citing section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has provided the complainant with all of the recorded information it is able to and has correctly applied section 40(2) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the College to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
10 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, his staff and their interaction with the Home Office. The Home Office refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (Cost of compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to apply section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request. However, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, the Commissioner finds that the Home Office breached section 10 (Time for compliance) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
View Home Office
10 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any reviews and assessments carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in relation to the handling of cases involving a man who killed someone while suffering a psychotic episode. The CPS refused the request, citing the non-disclosure exemptions at sections 30 (Investigations and proceedings), 36 (Prejudice to the conduct of public affairs), 40 (Personal information) and 42 (Legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was entitled to apply section 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
10 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the University of Sussex (the University) for marketing data. The University refused the request under the section 43(2) (commercial interests) exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that 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 University of Sussex
6 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of ‘informal’ staff complaints/grievances raised in a specific department from West Yorkshire Police (“WYP”). WYP provided some information but advised that to provide the remainder would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA; however, she finds a breach of section 10(1) (time for compliance) as well as a breach of section 16(1) in that it failed to provide adequate advice and assistance. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View West Yorkshire Police
6 Jul 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) about referrals from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in relation to off payroll contractors who have failed to provide income tax assurances. HMRC has disclosed some of the requested information but has refused to disclose the remainder of the information stating that it does not hold some of the information and relying on section 44(1) to refuse the remainder. The request and HMRC’s final position are set out in Annex A for ease of reference. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probability, HMRC does not hold the information requested at point two of the request. In respect of HMRC’s reliance on section 44(1)(a) in relation to parts of the request at points one, three and five, the Commissioner does not consider that section 44(1)(a) is engaged. In respect of point four of the request, the Commissioner considers that the information is held but that this element of the requ
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 44
6 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Tees Valley Airport. Tees Valley Combined Authority (“TVCA”) initially handled this request under the FOIA and refused to provide information relating to one of the requests citing section 43 (commercial interests exemption). It upheld this position at internal review. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation and at the request of the Commissioner, it stated reliance on EIR regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information). The Commissioner’s decision is that TVCA is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) in respect of the information it has withheld from disclosure. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2017/0163) withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
6 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an unredacted copy of the BBC’s No Licence Needed policy. The BBC refused the request on the basis of section 31(1)(a), (b), (d) and (g) with (2)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has correctly applied the provisions of section 31 of the FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View BBC
6 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested maps, reports and documents relating to the refined Meadowhall route for Phase 2b of HS2. High Speed Two Limited (HS2) sought to rely on the exception at Regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information relates to material still in the course of completion and the regulation 12(4)(d) exception is engaged and the public interest favours withholding the information. The Commissioner does not require HS2 to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
6 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted 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, 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) 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) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
5 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (the council), information regarding the numbers of buildings closed since 2010 due to government cuts. The council provided some information within the scope of the request, but stated that to locate and provide any further information that may be held would exceed the cost limit and that section 12 therefore applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse the request in this case. She has also found that the council has provided appropriate advice and assistance and has therefore complied with section 16. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Oldham Council
4 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding abuse and its cover up. The Commissioner’s decision is that Oldham 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0144 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Oldham Council
4 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to landscaping for a specific development. The Commissioner’s decision is that Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR under regulation 2(2). She does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0162 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)