22 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Practice Standards Scheme (‘PSS’) which is held by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (‘RCVS’). The RCVS refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 31(1)(g) by virtue of sections 31(2)(b-d) and 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the RCVS has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(c) to the requested information. She has therefore not gone on to consider the application of the other subsections of 31(2) or section 43(2) to the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0131 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
22 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the number of prison cells in England and Wales without integral in cell sanitation. 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
22 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the reimbursement of court fees. 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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Hertfordshire County Council (council) relating to the application and selection process for a particular position of employment. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require to the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Hertfordshire County Council
22 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) about its handling of subject access requests under the Data Protection Act. FOS has categorised the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA and has refused to comply with it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and FOS is correct not to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require FOS to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
22 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information broadly concerning the Morecambe Bay Investigation into failings at Furness General Hospital’s maternity unit. NHS Improvement (NHSI) has released a small amount of information with some information withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third person personal data).The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSI is correct not to disclose the information it is withholding under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal FS50662909 dismissed
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View NHS England
22 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about particular complaints about MPs’ expenses. Compliance Officer for IPSA (‘the Compliance Officer’) has withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA because it is the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption under section 40(2) is engaged and the Compliance Officer has correctly withheld the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0142 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/2396/2018 Permission to Appeal refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
22 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the content of the court’s case management file. 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 breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MoJ 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 requested copies of the minutes of a particular meeting, details of councillors and various other pieces of information. Llanbedr Community Council (‘the Council’) refused to comply with the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
22 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various pieces of information relating to placements for children with special educational needs. Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (‘the Council’) provided the majority of information requested but withheld some information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed some additional information, but maintained that information relating to one of its officers was exempt under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) to the remaining withheld information. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
22 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the number of tickets issued to two specific vehicle registration numbers. Cardiff Council (‘the Council’) withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed information relating to one of the vehicles. The Commissioner considers that the Council incorrectly applied section 40(2) to the request. The Commissioner has decided that under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA, the Council is not obliged to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information as to do so would release the personal data of a third person. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0158 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cardiff Council
22 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In four requests, the complainant has requested information concerning the closure of an art psychotherapy service waiting list. South West Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) said that the information requested in requests 1 and 4 is not held and that information it holds falling within the scope of requests 2 and 3 was the personal data of third persons and exempt under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Trust subsequently withdrew its reliance on section 40(2) and released a small amount of information it holds that is relevant to requests 2 and 3. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust: does not hold information relevant to requests 1 and 4; holds no further information relevant to requests 2 and 3; and has now fully complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also decided that the Trust breached section 10(1) with regard to requests 2 and 3 because it did not communicate the relevant information it holds to the comp
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
21 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the criteria used and scores awarded to bidders for an Adult Community Health Services contract. NHS Guildford and Waverley CCG disclosed the criteria used but refused to provide the scores on the basis of the section 43(2) exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 43(2) exemption is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the scores awarded to each bidder for each of the criteria used to select the preferred bidder for the contract referred to in the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
21 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (DfE) for information about the performance of Regional Schools Commissioners against their Key Performance Indicators. The DfE provided the complainant with some of the requested information however refused to disclose the remainder citing section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has determined the exemption is engaged but concluded that on balance the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the data relating to Key Performance Indicator (KPI) 6. 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 36
View Department for Education
21 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Beechen Cliff School (the ‘School’) information relating to a planning application to extend the School’s playing fields. The Commissioner has determined that the School has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to the request. The School has also complied with regulation 9(1) in the handling of this request. Therefore, she does not require the School to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
21 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (the council) relating to its review and decision to suspend work under a contract for provision of legal services by Baker Small solicitors. The council refused the complainant’s request, citing the exemptions under sections 36(2)(b)(i) (free and frank provision of advice), 36(2)(b)(ii) (free and frank provision of views for deliberation), 41 (information provided in confidence), 42 (legal professional privilege) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has applied sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) correctly in relation to all information to which these sections were applied, and to some, but not all, of the information to which sections 41 and 42 were applied. The council has applied section 43(2) correctly. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: To disclose to the complainant the emails dated 1
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 41; FOI 42; FOI 43
View London Borough of Croydon
21 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the provision of a temporary school at 38A Eastcourt Road, Watford. The DfE responded to the request releasing some information but refusing to disclose other information citing sections 40 and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied sections 40 and 43 of the FOIA to the remaining withheld information. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
View Department for Education
21 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence between the owner of a piece of land and the council in relation to a complaint that was made about the conversion of the site to a commercial shooting site without the benefit of planning permission. The council refused to disclose the requested information citing regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied regulation 13 of the EIR in this case. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Carmarthenshire County Council
20 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a two part request for information about a proposal to amend the Royal Warrant for the Special Constabulary Medal. The Home Office disclosed information in response to the first part of the request, but refused the second part of the request, citing the exemption at section 35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office failed to properly establish whether it held the information at the second part of the request, and therefore that it has not complied with the duty at section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a fresh response to the second part of the request. If the information is held, it should either be disclosed or a refusal notice provided which is compliant with section 17 of the FOIA. If the information is not held, the Home Office is reminded of its duty under section 16 to provide reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant, with regard to es
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
20 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from North East Lincolnshire Council about a High Court application. The Council refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1). However the Council provided its refusal notice out of time, and therefore breached section 17(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17
View North East Lincolnshire Council
20 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Arun District Council about the qualifications held by an individual employed by the Council. The Council disclosed some information, and withheld some under the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. The application of section 40(2) was contested by the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Arun District Council
20 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to polling data from the 2014 Scottish independence referendum from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 14(2) of the Act as it considered it was a repeat request. The Cabinet Office’s position was based on a case of mistaken identity with the complainant and a previous requester with a similar name. Once this mistake had been pointed out, the Cabinet Office refused the request under section 35(1)(a) of the Act as the information related to the development of government policy, and the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) of the Act applies, but that the public interest test favours disclosure of the withheld information. The Cabinet Office also breached section 17(1) as it did not apply section 35(1)(a) within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information to the compla
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
20 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence in which a specific councillor seeks information or advice regarding an ex-council building known as Park North. The Commissioner’s decision is that Horsham District Council has correctly refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. She does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0136 disposed of by consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Horsham District Council
20 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Bromley (the Council) for communications between Council officers and councillors in relation to planning applications he had submitted. The Council withheld the information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of the exception contained at regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information falls within the scope of the exception. However, she has concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exception does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Bromley Council
20 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information relating to the ‘shortlisting’ of David Cameron’s resignation honours list. The Cabinet Office argued that the shortlisting process was conducted in Mr Cameron’s personal and political capacity and thus any information generated by this process would not be held by the Cabinet Office for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner accepts that there is a political dimension to the shortlisting process. However, in her view any information generated by this process would also be held for official purposes and therefore if any such recorded information is physically held by the Cabinet Office then such information would be held by the Cabinet Office for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and if so disclose or refuse any information identified.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
19 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust (the Trust) regarding permanent, temporary, locum and agency doctors used in A&E in 2016. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has failed to give a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Trust must issue a response to the 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 Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
19 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant’s representatives have requested recorded information from Monks Eleigh Parish Council. The information the complainant seeks relates to plans for a new village hall. The Council has determined that the complainant’s information request is vexatious and therefore it has refused to comply with the request in reliance on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Monks Eleigh Parish Council has incorrectly applied section 14(1) and therefore the Commissioner requires the Council to make a fresh response to the complainant’s request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0146 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
19 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Transport for London (“TfL”) regarding TfL’s procedures for extracting customer data from its records of journeys paid for by bank card. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA in the following way: it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days as set out in section 10 of the FOIA. As the information has now been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Transport for London
19 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Hampshire County Council (the council) regarding the maintenance of drainage systems near to her property. The council provided information in response to the request, but the complainant maintained that more information must be held. The complainant was also concerned about the time it took for the council to respond to her requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with the requirements of regulation 5(1) and regulation 5(2). However, she has also decided that the council has failed to comply with regulation 11(4) by failing to respond to the internal review request within the prescribed time frame.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Hampshire County Council
15 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of any correspondence involving Theresa May which makes reference to the South Thanet constituency from the Home Office (“HO”). The HO would neither confirm nor deny holding any information as it said to do so would exceed the appropriate limit, citing section 12(2) of the FOIA (cost of compliance). The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so but that it breached section 16(1) of the FOIA (advice and assistance) in dealing with the request. No steps are required, however, in light of the additional information which has now been provided in this notice, the complainant may wish to submit a further request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
15 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the collapse of a wind turbine at Screggagh, County Tyrone, Northern Ireland. The Health and Safety Executive Northern Ireland (“HSENI”) disclosed some of the requested information, however it stated that some of the requested information (“the withheld information”) was exempt from disclosure, citing the exemptions under sections 30(1)(b), 40(2) and 44(1) of the FOIA. The HSENI also stated that it did not hold part of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSENI has correctly applied section 44(1) to the relevant parts of the requested information, namely the redactions under section 44(1) made to pages 73-93 of the information, and does not hold part of the requested information. However, in relation to the requested information withheld under section 30(1)(b) of the FOIA, the Commissioner has decided that, whilst the exemption is engaged, the public interest in all the circumstances of the case is
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 40; FOI 44
15 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a ‘validation check report ‘relating to a planning application. The council responded asking the complainant to clarify what information he was requesting as they do not use a document entitled a validation check report. The complainant did not clarify his request further. The council therefore said that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request (Regulation 12(4)(a)). The complainant persisted with his request and so the council subsequently applied section 14 of the FOI Act on the grounds that the request was vexatious. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council agreed that it should have considered the request under the EIR rather than the FOI Act. Amongst other things, Regulation 12(4)(b) provides the equivalent exemption to section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) to the request. She has however decided that the council was correct to apply Re
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Hastings Borough Council
15 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to prison establishments. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder citing section 21(1) of the FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means) and section 40(2) (personal information). The complainant did not dispute the MoJ’s application of section 40(2). Accordingly the Commissioner only investigated its application of section 21(1) to the information withheld by virtue of that exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ incorrectly applied section 21(1) in this case. However, as the information is now accessible to the applicant, she requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Ministry of Justice
15 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two requests for information relating to various pre-operative policies and information about the handling of subject access requests. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust (the Trust) has failed to provide a response to the requests 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 requests in accordance with the legislation or issue a valid refusal notice under section 17(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
15 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to immigration officers attending the premises of a number of Byron restaurants across London on 4 July 2016. The Commissioner’s decision is 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 the Home Office has breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also found breaches of sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Home Office is required to issue a substantive response to the complainant’s request, either disclosing the requested information or issuing a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA. The Home Office 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View Home Office
15 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Home office buildings and police stations previously used by UKVI. The Commissioner’s decision is 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 the Home Office has breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also found breaches of sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Home Office is required to issue a substantive response to the complainant’s request, either disclosing the requested information or issuing a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View Home Office
15 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of times Rule 40 was applied at each of the UK’s immigration removal centres in 2014 and 2015, and the number of times Rule 42 was applied at each of the UK’s immigration removal centres in 2015. The Commissioner’s decision is 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 the Home Office has breached section 17(3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner has also found breaches of sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Home Office is required to issue a substantive response to the complainant’s request, either disclosing the requested information or issuing a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View Home Office
15 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application for a site in Kircubbin, County Down, Northern Ireland. The Council provided some information within the scope of the complainant’s request, however it stated that it did not hold the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the remaining requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5
14 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the ‘mystery shopper’ research undertaken as part of the Home Office’s evaluation of the ‘Right to Rent’ scheme. The Home Office ultimately relied on sections 40(2) (personal information), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA to withhold the information it held that fell within the scope of the request. The complainant disputed the Home Office’s application of section 41(1) to the information withheld by virtue of that exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office failed to demonstrate that the exemption in section 41 of the FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - disclose the information withheld by virtue of section 41(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Home Office
13 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that Medway Council has failed to demonstrate that the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) where disclosure would have an adverse effect upon the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest is engaged. She has also decided that the council does not hold any further information relevant to the requests in this case. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information requested at part 1.b.i. of the request to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(1)
View Medway Council
13 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Nottinghamshire Police’s use of covert communications data capture technology. Nottinghamshire Police would neither confirm nor deny holding any information citing the exemptions at sections 23(5) (security bodies), 24(2) (national security), 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5) and 24(2) were cited correctly and so Nottinghamshire Police was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
13 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on overcrowding forecasts for the West Coast Mail Line in the HS2 Strategic Case. For some of the requested information the Department for Transport (“DfT”) relied on section 21 of the FOIA as it considered the information reasonably accessible to the applicant. The DfT withheld the information used for its calculation of demand and revenue on the basis of section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has correctly applied section 41 to refuse to provide the information used in its calculations. For the information refused under section 21 the Commissioner finds that the information on trains, capacities and service patterns was correctly refused. However, for information on growth scenarios and assessments of likelihood the Commissioner finds section 21 was incorrectly applied. She requires no steps to be taken as the information has either been provided or the DfT has confirmed the information is not held. Information Tr
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 41
View Department for Transport
13 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Historic England (‘HE’) previously known as English Heritage, information relating to a development plan of a particular site and information about the trees that had been planted. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental for the purposes of the EIR and that HE does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is not held and that regulation 12(4)(a) applies. The Commissioner does not require HE to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal FS50646278 dismissed
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Historic England
12 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the procedure on how curtailment notices are sent to the public. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) as it has failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Home Office must issue a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under 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 Home Office
12 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an electronic copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) between the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) and the Saudi MOJ. The MOJ confirmed that it held the requested information but refused to provide it citing sections 27(1) and 27(2), (international relations), of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt on the basis of section 27(1)(a) of FOIA, and that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. As she has found section 27(1) to be engaged, the Commissioner did not proceed to consider the MOJ’s application of section 27(2) to the same information. However, by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days, the MOJ has breached section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Ministry of Justice
12 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about autistic individuals in relation to crimes committed and charges dropped. The Crown Prosecution Service (the ‘CPS’) 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 CPS 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 Crown Prosecution Service
12 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office about the number of food refusals across the detention estate in October, November and December 2016 inclusive. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as they have failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Home Office must issue a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under 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 Home Office
12 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an Employment Tribunal. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it relying on section 32(1)(a) (court records) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated the MoJ’s application of section 32(1)(a) and concluded that the MoJ was entitled to rely on this exemption to withhold the information. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
12 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office regarding the issuing of, and spending on, Azure cards. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has failed to give a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Home Office must issue a response to the 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 Home Office
12 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office regarding unlawful curfews imposed on those released from immigration detention centres pending the conclusion of deportation procedures. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Home Office 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 Home Office