12 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office regarding crown saving clauses. The Home Office failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office 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 Home Office must issue a response to the 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 upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about all encounters and arrests by immigration officers. 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 upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office regarding the number of applications made by minors’ registration as a British Citizen who were refused under the good character requirement. The Home Office has not responded. The Commissioner considers that the Home Office breached section 10(1) 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 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 regarding the number of appeals and judicial reviews lodged against UK visa decisions. 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
12 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the non-payment of NHS bills from people outside of the European Economic Area. The Commissioner considers that the Home Office 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 the request in accordance with its obligations under 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 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 about people entering the UK illegally. The Home Office failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Home Office must issue a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Home Office must take this step 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
8 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in with regards to a parking concern. Cherwell District Council (the council) responded that the requested information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cherwell District Council
8 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about police attendance at a specific address from Thames Valley Police (“TVP”). TVP initially refused to confirm or deny holding this information citing sections 40(5) (personal information) and 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) as its basis for doing so. During the Commissioner’s investigation this was revised to 40(2) and 30(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exemption is engaged and she requires TVP to either disclose the requested information or issue a fresh response which does not rely on either section 30 or 40.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 40
View Thames Valley Police
8 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to adverse incidents in connection with Essure devices. The MHRA refused to disclose the requested information under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 44(1)(b) FOIA prevents disclosure of the withheld information in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
8 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about communications data capture from the Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner for Avon & Somerset (the “OPCC”). The OPCC 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 so the OPCC was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
7 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) relating to the then candidate for the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump. The FCO refused this request under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), as the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCO is entitled to refuse the request under section 12(1) of the Act. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
7 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a file relating to revenue generating street furniture structures known as advertising drums. Cardiff Council (‘the Council’) provided the information requested, subject to some information being redacted under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescales, the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cardiff Council
7 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to non-British migrants moved by HM Government from French territory in and around the port of Calais into the United Kingdom in October 2016. The Home Office failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
7 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Homes for Haringey (“HfH”), an arm’s length organisation of the London Borough of Haringey and a public authority in its own right for the purposes of the FOIA. The information comprised recommendations that were made by the Homes for Haringey Resident Scrutiny Panel (“RSP”) into the activities of a particular organisation. HfH stated that it did not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, if the information is held, it is held on behalf of HfH by the RSP. The Commissioner requires HfH to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to the complainant after contacting the RSP.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
6 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Education Authority Northern Ireland (“EANI”) in relation to a heating installation project for Victoria College, Belfast. The EANI disclosed some of the requested information to the complainant, however it stated that it did not hold the remaining requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the EANI was correct to state that it does not hold the remaining requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
6 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Isle of Anglesey County Council (the Council) relating to a planning enforcement investigation. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing Regulation 13(1) (personal information) and Regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information to the public authority) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council revised its position and disclosed the withheld information, in redacted form, to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to comply with its obligations under regulation 5(2) of the EIR. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Isle of Anglesey County Council
6 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the trial of ‘Kanopy’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University of Sussex (the University) has correctly applied section 43(2) (commercial interests) to the majority of the withheld information. However, she also considers that part of the withheld information should be disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The University should disclose the list of video titles as outlined at paragraph 32 of this notice. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View University of Sussex
6 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the university to provide any recorded information it holds which will confirm whether any disciplinary action was taken against a member of staff in 2006 and if not, why not. The university responded advising the complainant that it does not hold any recorded information of this nature.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the university does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. However, the university failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View The University of Leeds
6 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics from the council relating to incidents of harassment and bullying within the council. The council provided some information but refused to provide more specific numbers for parts 3, 4 and 9 of the request on the grounds that section 40(2) applied (personal data). When the complainant asked for a review the council applied section 14(1) to the complainant's insistence that specific numbers are disclosed (vexatious). During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the council also argued that section 12 was applicable to part 9 of the complainant's request (cost exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that council was not correct to apply section 14 to the request. She has also decided that it was not correct to apply section 40(2) to withhold the information. She has however decided that it was able to apply section 12 to refuse part 9 of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following st
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 14; FOI 40
View North Yorkshire County Council
6 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a meeting held at Reaseheath Equine Centre on the evening of the 16 February 2017 concerning a badger cull. The Commissioner’s decision is that Reaseheath College 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
5 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested access to a closed file. The request was refused by the National Archives (TNA) on the grounds of health and safety (section 38 of FOIA). The Commissioner has found that section 38(1) is engaged and that in all the circumstances the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Commissioner also finds that TNA breached section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 38
View The National Archives
5 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about organisations that handle complaints about former Primary Care Trusts generally and one Primary Care Trust in particular. The initial position of the Department of Health (DH) was that it did not hold the requested information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, DH reconsidered its position, under the FOIA. It now refuses to comply with the first of the complainant’s requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests) and has released information it holds falling within the scope of the second request. With regard to DH’s response of 20 April 2017, the Commissioner’s decision is as follows: DH has complied with its obligations under section 1(1)(a) and section 1(1)(b) with regard to request 2 – it has confirmed it holds the requested information and has communicated it to the complainant. With regard to request 2, DH breached section 10(1) because it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. DH is entitl
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 14; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Department of Health and Social Care
5 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the review of a department by an external consultant. Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) refused to provide the information citing the exemption at section 41 of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust
5 Jun 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of three sets of minutes from the Home Office (the “HO”). The HO refused to provide these citing sections 24(1) (national security), 31(1)(a) & (b) (law enforcement) and 36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. It also refused to confirm or deny holding further information citing section 23(5) (security bodies). During the Commissioner’s investigation it added reliance on sections 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) and 38(1) (health and safety), it also revised its position regarding section 23(5) instead stating section 23(1).
The Commissioner’s decision is that, where cited, section 23(1) is engaged. She finds sections 24(1), 31(1), 35(1) and 38(1) not to be engaged. As personal data falls within the remit of the investigation the Commissioner has also considered section 40(2) but found that it is only partially engaged. She finds that section 36(2) is engaged but that the public interest in ma
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 31; FOI 35; FOI 36; FOI 38; FOI 40
View Home Office
1 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about experiments carried out on animals at Public Health England’s Porton Down laboratory during 2014 and 2015. Public Health England (PHE) is withholding the information under section 22 of the FOIA as it says it intends to publish it in the future. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information does not engage the exemption under section 22(1). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the requested information to the complainant or issue a fresh response that does not rely on section 22 of the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0130 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View UK Health Security Agency
1 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the work of a named Home Office forensic pathologist, including the number of times they had been instructed by the police to perform an autopsy. The Home Office stated that some of the information was not held. It refused to provide the remainder on the grounds of the exemption provided at sections 36 (prejudice to effective public affairs) and 40(2) (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Having investigated its application of section 40(2), the Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office correctly applied the section 40(2) exemption. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0127 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
1 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking its evaluation of tenders submitted by various companies for a particular contract along with the prices submitted by each company. The MOD withheld the requested information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the information falling within the scope of the request is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0129 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Ministry of Defence
1 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails of a named Councillor in relation to an area of land. Horsham District Council (the council) refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered it to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is able to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Horsham District Council
1 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Lancashire County Council about the social care of a now deceased relative. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire County Council has correctly withheld the requested information under the exemption for information provided in confidence at section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Lancashire County Council
1 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a viability appraisal relating to a housing development at North Parade, Skipton. Craven District Council withheld the information under the exception for commercial confidentiality – regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Craven District Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the viability appraisal to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0132 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Craven District Council
1 Jun 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Ceredigion County Council (“the Council”) regarding a spreadsheet of jobs at the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0114 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ceredigion County Council
1 Jun 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about payments to informants from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS provided some information but refused the remainder citing sections 30(2) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. It would also neither confirm nor deny holding information by virtue of sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security) and 30(3)(investigations and proceedings). The Commissioner’s decision is that, where cited, the MPS was entitled to rely on sections 23(5) and 24(2). She also finds that section 30(2) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 30
View Metropolitan Police Service
31 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Supreme Defence Council of Yugoslavia from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). The FCO refused the request under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The complainant submitted a second request, which the FCO interpreted as having a narrower scope and was able to deny any relevant information was held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it became apparent that the scope intended by the complainant was much wider than the FCO had originally thought. When the FCO handled the request in accordance with the complainant’s interpretation it refused the request under section 12(1) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that FCO is entitled to refuse both requests under section 12(1) of the Act. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
31 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested TfL to disclose the outcome of a pre-feasibility study into removing the Congestion Charge Zone exemption from PHVs. The TfL responded, refusing to disclose the requested information citing regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR. The TfL’s response was issued late and was provided to the complainant in excess of 20 working days. The Commissioner has therefore recorded a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The complainant requested an internal review in accordance with regulation 11 of the EIR but to the date of this notice this process has not been completed. As regulation 11 of the EIR requires a public authority to carry out an internal review within 40 working days of receipt, the Commissioner has concluded that TfL has breached this regulation. The Commissioner requires TfL to notify the complainant of the outcome of the internal review process within 30 calendar days of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(2)
View Transport for London
30 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of slides and presentations produced by Deloitte for meetings with NHS England. NHS England refused to provide the information on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c) and 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has correctly applied the exemption from disclosure at section 36(2)(b)(ii) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the requested information. She requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View NHS England
25 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request to the HSE for information relating to a particular company and a HSE investigation into this company. The HSE refused to comply with the request under regulation 12(4)(b) EIR as it considers it to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) EIR to the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0123 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Health and Safety Executive
25 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked Warwickshire County Council’s for copies of minutes of meetings which are referred to in the Local Member and Portfolio Holder Briefing “Proposed Free Schools & Rokeby Primary School” document. The complainant particularly seeks the minutes of the meeting which took place on 27 November 2015. The Council informed the complainant that it does not hold minutes or notes of the meeting of 27 November on the grounds that it was informal and not a meeting of a decision making group. The Commissioner has decided that Warwickshire County Council does not hold any minutes or notes for the meeting held on 27 November 2015. By informing the complainant of this fact the Council has complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. Due to its failure to complete its review of the complainant’s request within forty working days, the Commissioner has decided that the Council has contravened Regulation 11(4) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Warwickshire County Council
25 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Northamptonshire County Council about a limited company that provides financial appointee services. The Council disclosed information in response under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. The complainant contested that further relevant information was held by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not complied with the FOIA in respect of part 5 and part 12 of the request. For the remainder of the request the Commissioner is satisfied that no further information is held. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Reconsider part 5 and part 12 of the request and issue a fresh response that complies with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Northamptonshire County Council
25 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Council for a copy of a formal Declaration made by a particular Councillor. The Council refused to comply with the request under section 14 FOIA as it considers it to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 14 FOIA to the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
25 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council about Brighton and Hove Seaside Community Housing. The Council responded that it did not hold any relevant information. The complainant disputed the Council’s position. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold relevant information for part 1 and part 3 of the request. For part 2 of the request there is evidence that relevant information is held. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to part 2 of the request that complies with the Freedom of Information Act.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Brighton and Hove City Council
25 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cardiff Council about the application of council tax exemptions. The Council refused to comply with part of the request under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The complainant subsequently contested the Council’s refusal to comply with that part. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Cardiff Council
25 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked the public authority to disclose a record of a conversation that took place between former President of the United States of America, George Bush and former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on 16 April 2004. The public authority withheld the requested information in reliance on the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) and 27(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the requested information on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0128 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
25 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Durham County Council about a noise complaint that he has made. The Council did not issue a response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. However the complainant has informed the Commissioner that he no longer wishes to receive a response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Durham County Council
24 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Deloitte's work on the costing of 7 day services. NHS England provided some information but refused to provide some of the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(ii), section 36(2)(c) and section 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View NHS England
24 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust (“the Trust”) for the results of tests conducted on brain samples of a deceased person. The Trust refused the request under the exemptions in section 41 (information provided in confidence), section 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) and section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The complainant also made a supplementary request and was not satisfied that the Trust had disclosed all of the information he asked for. The Commissioner’s decision is that the test results are exempt from disclosure under section 41 and that as regards the supplementary request the Trust holds no further information beyond what has already been communicated to the complainant. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 41
View Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
24 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the names and job titles filling certain roles within the Trust. The Trust provided the requested information, but not within the twenty working days set out in the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust breached section 10 of the FOIA. As the information was ultimately provided the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Homerton Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
24 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of attachments to emails previously disclosed to him beginning with ‘7DS’ NHS England refused to provide the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0106 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View NHS England
24 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the National Museum of the Royal Navy (the NMRN) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The NMRN did not comply with the request on the grounds that it did not consider itself a public authority within the meaning of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NMRN is not a public authority as defined within section 3(1) the Act. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View National Museum of the Royal Navy
24 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to road maintenance. Lancashire County Council provided a response, but provided it outside the required timeframes of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As a response has been provided, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Lancashire County Council
24 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to an area of land which included information relating to a named office holder. Horsham District Council refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered it to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council are able to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Horsham District Council