4 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning Departmental meetings with BP plc and invitations issued to Ministers by BP plc to attend cultural events or performances. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) provided some information within scope of the request but withheld some information from the note of a meeting on 9 June 2015 between the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries and representatives of BP plc. DCMS withheld the information under Section 35(1)(a)(formulation or development of government policy) and Section 27(1) (prejudice to international relations). Section 35(1)(d)(the operation of any Ministerial private office) and Section 40(2) were also applied to a small amount of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS was entitled to rely on Section 35(1)(a) to withhold all of the withheld information and the balance of the public interest supported maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
4 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding his late father’s service record. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) responded and informed the complainant that it did not hold any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOD does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the MOD to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0179 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Defence
4 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to paediatric audiology waiting times. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) has failed to provide a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore reminds the Trust of its obligations under the FOIA and requires that it either respond to the request in accordance with the legislation or issue a valid refusal notice under section 17(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
4 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the University of Southampton copies of correspondence between two professors. The University has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has breached section 10 (1) time for compliance in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: The University must provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View University of Southampton
4 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to impact assessments of badger culling and associated operations on species and habitats within licenced badger cull areas. Natural England provided some of the requested information however withheld the remainder citing the exception under 12(5)(a) of the EIR (public safety). The Commissioner’s decision is that Natural England was incorrect to rely on EIR exception 12(5)(a) and that the withheld information should be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Natural England shall disclose to the complainant the information withheld under EIR exception 12(5)(a). Any third party personal data and names of business should be redacted. 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
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Natural England
4 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the transfer of water from one reservoir to another. Originally the water company refused the entire request under regulation 12(5)(b) – adverse affect on the course of justice. However during the Commissioner’s investigation it revised its position. Although it continued to withhold some information under 12(5)(b) it did disclose other information or inform the complainant that the information was not held by citing regulation 12(4)(a). The Commissioner’s decision regulation 12(5)(b) is not engaged in respect of the information to which it is still being applied. In failing to provide other information within the statutory time limits the water company breached regulation 5(2) and by failing to inform the complainant that the remaining information was not held by serving a refusal notice citing regulation 12(4)(a) within the statutory time limit the water company breached regulation 14(2).The Commissioner requires the public authority to di
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View United Utilities
3 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) for copies of correspondence in relation to the allocation of a particular council house. The Council sought to withhold this information on the basis of section 30(1)(b) (investigations) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information falls within the scope of the exemption and furthermore that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Sandwell Council
3 Jul 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue (‘SYFR’) for “all the recorded information held” in relation to SYFR’s expenditure with Wirral Cladding and Roofing (‘WCR’). SYFR initially refused to provide the requested information on the basis of section 22 (information intended for future publication); however, during the Commissioner’s investigation, it disclosed the majority of the information to the complainant, with the remainder withheld under section 43(2) of FOIA, commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) is not engaged; she requires SYFR to disclose the information, in the scope of the request, previously withheld under section 43(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service
3 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to cases dealt with by a named employee of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The FOS has withheld the information on application of section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption has been engaged correctly and she does not require the FOS to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0143 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
3 Jul 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a proposed route of the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway. The Commissioner’s decision is that Highways England (HE) has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) of the EIR to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal ( EA/2017/0155) allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View National Highways
29 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Finchley Road changes. TfL withheld the requested information under section 22 FOIA. The Commissioner considers that TfL was correct to apply section 22 FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Transport for London
29 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complaints and/or costs relating to Laura Kuenssberg's question/s to President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Theresa May. The BBC said that the requested 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 within the scope of FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
29 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to Health Education England (HEE) for information related to a letter sent by HEE’s Chief Executive regarding changes to junior doctors’ contracts. HEE disclosed some information falling within the scope of the request but also withheld some information under the section 36 exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that HEE has correctly applied section 36 to the withheld information and that 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 NHS England
29 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for reports made or received regarding the inauguration of President Trump. The FCO provided the complainant with some information but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d), 27(2) (international relations) and section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information has been correctly withheld on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) and section 40(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40
29 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested email
correspondence between particular individuals for a particular period. The DoH refused to disclose the requested information under section 35(1)(a), section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) and 40(2) FOIA was applied correctly to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 40(2)
View Department of Health and Social Care
29 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a number of requests to Kirklees Council (“the council”) relating to parking services under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). The council provided some recorded information but said that no further information was held. The complainant asked the Commissioner to consider whether the council held any further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that no further information was held. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
29 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report into the financial issues at Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The Trust refused the request on the basis of various subsections of the section 31 exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has demonstrated that section 31(1)(g) with 31(2)(d) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
29 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for copies of correspondence and communications between HRH Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in relation to public roles for the Duke of York’s daughters. The public authority neither confirmed nor denied holding information within the scope of the complainant’s request in reliance on sections 37(2) and 40(5)(b)(i) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 37(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View HM Treasury
29 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to fishermen’s submitted catch returns. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cornwall Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
29 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to roads in Cambridgeshire. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridgeshire County Council has incorrectly applied the exception at regulation 12(5)(c) of the EIR where disclosure would adversely affect intellectual property rights. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested unclassified roads data to the complainant to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(c)
View Cambridgeshire County Council
29 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a decision made by the FCA not to investigate a named company. The FCA refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held under section 31(3) and 43(3) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA has correctly applied section 31(3) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 43
View Financial Conduct Authority
29 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) about a specified property owned by a third party individual. RBKC has neither confirmed nor denied whether it holds the requested information citing section 40(5) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that RBKC was correct to rely on section 40(5) to neither confirm nor deny whether the information was held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0156 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
29 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of students disciplined after a disrupted talk. King’s College London (KCL) withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that KCL has correctly applied this exemption and does not require KCL to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0149 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View King's College London
29 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of the legal advice received by Durham County Council (“the council”) about whether it could insist a particular report was uploaded onto the internet. The council refused to provide the information using the exception under regulation 12(5)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”). This exception concerns prejudice to the course of justice. It said that the public interest did not favour disclosure. The complainant asked the Commissioner to decide whether the council had responded correctly. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception was engaged and that the public interest did not favour disclosure. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Durham County Council
29 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for copies of correspondence and communications between HRH Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, and the Prime Minister, in relation to public roles for the Duke of York’s daughters. The public authority neither confirmed nor denied holding information within the scope of the complainant’s request in reliance on sections 37(2) and 40(5)(b)(i) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 37(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
29 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
In six requests, the complainant has requested information about a proposed improvement scheme for the A27 Chichester. The proposal was subsequently withdrawn. Highways England (HE) released information but the complainant considers that the released information does not address five of his requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that HE: does not hold the information requested in request 1[c] and has complied with regulation 5(1) (duty to make environmental information available on request) with regard to this request; has complied with regulation 5(1) with regard to request 2[a]; has not complied with regulation 5(1) with regard to requests 1[a], 3 and 6; did not breach regulation 5(2) (time for compliance) with regard to request 2[a]; and breached regulation 5(2) with regards 1[a] and 1[c], and requests 3 and 6; breached regulation 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(b) (advice and assistance) with regards to requests 1[b], 2[b] 4 and 5; and cannot rely on the exception under regulation 12(4)(b)
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 9
View National Highways
29 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an electronic copy of Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceeding and Usage of Parliament. The public authority withheld a copy of the book in reliance on the exemption contained at sections 21(1) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information requested on the basis of the exemption contained at section 21(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0134 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
28 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding claims made to Staffordshire County Council (the Council) for incidents involving potholes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA but has breached section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant pursuant to the duty provided at section 16 of the FOIA. The advice and assistance should be given with the view to determining what, if any, information relevant to the request can be provided within the appropriate costs limit and allow the complainant to make a new request should this be possible. 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 12
View Staffordshire County Council
28 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of times the phrase “YOU CAN’T MAKE ME” appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Humberside Police has applied section 14(1) of FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner does not require Humberside Police to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0161 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Humberside Police
28 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on benefit claims made by non-EEA nationals. The Department for Work and Pensions refused to comply with the request and cited section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the cost of providing the requested information will not exceed the appropriate limit and that section 12 of the FOIA is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response under the FOIA which does not rely on section 12. 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 12
View Department for Work and Pensions
27 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Horsham District Council about the purchase and use of a building. The Council disclosed some held information, and withheld some under the exemption provided by section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The complainant subsequently disputed the Council’s application of section 42(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 42(1). However the Council has breached section 10(1) by failing to comply with section 1(1) within the time for compliance, and section 17(1) by failing to provide a refusal notice within the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 42
View Horsham District Council
27 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted three separate requests to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). All three requests sought information about the UK’s relations with Saudi Arabia. The FCO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of each of the requests but explained that it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test for each of them. To date, the FCO has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations in relation to all three requests. By failing to complete these deliberations within a reasonable timeframe the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO has breached section 17(3) of FOIA in respect of its handling of all three requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
27 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Environment Agency (EA) to disclose the name of the successful candidate for a position he applied for. The EA refused to disclose this information citing section 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA has acted appropriately by refusing to disclose the requested information under section 40 of the FOIA. As a result the Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Environment Agency
27 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the administrative costs associated with pursuing his daughter for a penalty charge in respect of dental treatment. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHS Business Services Authority does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS Business Services Authority
26 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on employee standards and policies on personal data security. The Health & Care Professions Council (HCPC) provided much information but withheld some citing the exemptions under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) and section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HCPC has correctly applied the exemptions under section 40(2) and section 36(2)(c) and does not require the HCPC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Health and Care Professions Council
26 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the misconduct hearing of a police officer who has been dismissed from Cheshire Constabulary. Cheshire Constabulary refused to provide the information citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that it was correct to do so.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Cheshire Constabulary
26 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a former student of Newcastle University (the University). Under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA the University neither confirms nor denies that it holds this information, which it says would be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is correct to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information, and that the exemption under section 40(5)(b)(i) is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5) (1)
View Newcastle Foundation NHS Trust
26 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to stroke times. East of England Ambulance Service (EEAS) cited section 22(intended for future publication) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that EEAS has correctly applied section 22(1) of the FOIA in its response to the request. As the information has now been made public the Commissioner does not require EEAS to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust
26 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the number of additional hours worked and the additional wages received by a named GP whilst participating in a government pilot project. The practice refused the request on the grounds that information relating to hours and salary are personal data belonging to the GP. The practice applied section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the practice has correctly applied section 40(2) to the information. The Commissioner does not require the practice to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Park Surgery
26 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the authorisation that led to the outsourcing of Staffordshire Police pensions to a third company ‘Mouchel/Kier’. Having answered previous connected requests, Staffordshire Police (the police) refused this request relying on the section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the police acted correctly in relying on the section 14(1) FOIA exemption. However, she found that the police breached section 10 as it failed to provide a substantive response within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14(1)
View Staffordshire Police
26 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on payments to MPs. 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
26 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Management Information System Online (“MISO”) information from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office refused to provide this citing section 43 (commercial interests exemption) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it revised its position and made a disclosure under FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 43 as its basis for withholding the information which remains withheld within the scope of the request. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0159 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Cabinet Office
26 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relevant to the provision of section 5(2) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, and actions which the complainant believes Cumbria County Council’s Monitoring Officer should have taken in respect of this provision. The Council has refused the complainant’s request on the grounds that it is vexatious and the request is therefore subject to the Council’s application of section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cumbria County Council has properly applied section 14(1) to the complainant’s request and it is therefore it is not required to comply with that request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cumbria County Council
22 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the University’s Belfast campus development. The University disclosed some of the requested information to the complainant, agreed to allow him to attend to inspect some more of the requested information, however it withheld the remainder, citing section 43(2) as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has not correctly applied section 43(2) to the remaining requested information (“the withheld information”). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the remaining withheld information within the scope of the complainant’s request to the complainant. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Ulster University
22 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Humberside Police information concerning instances of refusal to act on alleged crimes, notably allegations of perjury, that he had reported to them. The Commissioner decided that Humberside Police had acted correctly in relying on the section 14(1) (vexatious requests) FOIA exemption to refuse the requests. The police did not respond within 20 working days of receiving these requests and in so doing breached the requirements of sections 10(1) (time for compliance) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Humberside Police to take any further steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Humberside Police
22 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to SIA (Security Industry Authority) licences. The council initially considered that the complainant had not requested recorded information. Following contact from the Commissioner, the council amended its stance and responded that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the information requested. She also found that the council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA due to the time it took to respond. As the council has now responded and found the requested information is not held by it, she does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Liverpool City Council
22 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to three areas of land. Trafford Borough Council (the council) initially responded that no information was held for the majority of the request and provided a link to information for the remaining part of it. Following an internal review, the council located some further information but stopped its searches when it realised that it would be too costly to continue to search any further and relied on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR – manifestly unreasonable – to do so. The complainant considers that the council should carry out a full search for all the information it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is engaged to the request and so the council does not need to carry out any further searches for this request. She also found that the council provided reasonable advice and assistance as per regulation 9 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps and it would be f
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Trafford Council
22 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a contract and/or business plan between all sections of the welfare/health and social care system. The complainant also requested whether reports are redacted before they are published on the Care Quality Commission’s (the CQC) website. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CQC does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View CQC
22 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding fines for G4S relating to the running of prisons since April 2016. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The MoJ must provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under 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 pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
22 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Economic Impact of a New Prison Report. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the MoJ has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The MoJ must provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under 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 pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice