24 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the London Borough of Lewisham (“the council”) information concerning its No Recourse to Public Funds (“NRPF”) training material, guidance and other related documents. The council disclosed some information but the complainant was dissatisfied with this and believes further recorded information falling within the scope of her request is held by the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any further recorded information to that already provided. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0126 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Lewisham Council
23 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to events the council has sponsored during 2015. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, Liverpool City Council (‘the council’) has not provided a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore reminds the council 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 Liverpool City Council
23 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the supply of keeper data where byelaws apply. The Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA identified information within the scope of the request but withheld this on the basis that information was legally professionally privileged and therefore exempt under section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision, after considering the public interest test, is that the DVLA has correctly applied this exemption and the public interest favours withholding the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
23 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to expenses claimed by the Mayoral team. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, Liverpool City Council (‘the council’) has not provided a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore reminds the council 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 Liverpool City Council
23 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to traffic at a specific roundabout and road with reference to a Transport Evidence Base Report. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Derbyshire Dales District Council does not hold further requested information. She does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5; FOI 1
View Derbyshire Dales District Council
23 May 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific planning decision notice. Mendip District Council (the council) provided some information, but the complainant disputed that this was the correct information. During the course of the investigation, the council provided further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all the information it holds within the scope of the request. It has therefore complied with section 1 of the FOIA. However, in providing the requested metadata outside the required 20 working days, the council has breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
22 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to planning issues including enforcement files about alleged breaches of planning control in respect of two residential properties. The Council refused to provide the information from the enforcement files under regulation 13 – personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the information contained in the enforcement files under regulation 13(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in respect of this matter.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View West Oxfordshire District Council
22 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a planning report written by a named individual from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). Initially the MOJ neither confirmed nor denied whether it held this information, citing sections 32(3) and 40(5) of FOIA, court records and personal information respectively. Following an internal review, the MOJ instead said it required further clarification of the request in order to determine whether it held the requested report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 1(3) of the FOIA because it required clarification as to which report the complainant has requested. The Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
22 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested biographical information relating to case examiners. The General Medical Council (GMC) refused to provide the requested 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 the GMC has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0141 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC
22 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Education Funding Agency (EFA), an executive agency of the Department for Education (DfE), for a copy of an internal audit report carried out on Collective Spirit Multi Academy Trust. The DfE refused the complainant’s request, citing the exemptions under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) (free and frank exchange of views), 36(2)(c) (otherwise prejudice effective conduct of public affairs) and 33 (audit functions) of the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(ii) is engaged and that, in all the circumstances, the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in withholding the requested information. Accordingly she has not gone on to consider sections 36(2)(c) or 33. The Commissioner does not require the DfE to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
22 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked North Hertfordshire District Council to provide him with copies of a viability assessment report commissioned by the owner of The Cabinet Public House in Reed, Hertfordshire, together with an independent verification report commissioned by the Council. The Council has refused the complainant’s request in reliance on section 43(2) of the FOIA and Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Hertfordshire District Council has correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(e) to the two reports and the Council is therefore entitled to withhold them from the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View North Hertfordshire District Council
22 May 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating the inclusion of Roman numerals in the national primary curriculum. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education (the DfE) has correctly applied section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) of the FOIA to part of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld information contained in Annex C. 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 35
View Department for Education
22 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the deployment of PCSOs in Lewes. Sussex Police failed to respond to this request for information within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in its handling of the request. The information has now been disclosed to the complainant, and so the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sussex Police
22 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a named dentist’s address. The General Dental Council (GDC) refused to provide the requested 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 the GDC has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View General Dental Council
22 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made several requests for information relating to Avon and Somerset Constabulary’s treatment of Injury on Duty pensions. Avon and Somerset Constabulary was not satisfied that the complainant had stated her real name when making the requests. It asked her for confirmation of her identity, which she declined to provide, whereupon it refused to deal with the requests, citing section 8(1)(b) (Request for information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in the particular circumstances of the case, Avon and Somerset Constabulary was entitled to consider that the requests did not meet the criteria for valid requests at section 8(1)(b) of the FOIA without confirmation of the complainant’s identity. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Avon and Somerset Police
18 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the conduct of a named policing operation carried out by North Yorkshire Police. Some information was disclosed both before and during the Commissioner’s investigation. For the remainder of the information requested, North Yorkshire Police said that it does not hold some of the information requested and withheld other information relying on the section 42(1) FOIA (legal professional privilege) exemption. The Commissioner decided that North Yorkshire Police does not hold further undisclosed information in respect of parts 2, 3 and 4 of the request and has applied the section 42(1) FOIA exemption appropriately to part 5 of the request. The Commissioner does not require North Yorkshire Police to take any steps to comply with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0121 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 42
View North Yorkshire Police
18 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (DfE) relating to meetings of the Star Chamber Scrutiny Board (SCSB) regarding the addition of pupil data items ‘country of birth’ and ‘nationality’ to the National Pupil Database. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is correct in stating that section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA is engaged in relation to the withheld information, however the balance of public interest, in all the circumstances of the case, lies in favour of disclosing the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the DfE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the withheld information 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 with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Education
17 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding communication between Babergh District Council (the council) and Taylor Wimpey relating to the Wolsey Grange development. The council provided some information but sought to withhold the remainder under regulation 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(f) as the information is incomplete data and also its disclosure would adversely affect the interests of the developer. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to adequately demonstrate that the exceptions at 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(f) apply to the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to now disclose the information to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Babergh District Council
17 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a contract between the public authority and a developer in relation to Kirby Road Sports Complex. Hemsworth Town Council refused the request, withholding the information under the exemption for prejudice to commercial interests – section 43(2) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld the information under the exception for adverse affect to commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Hemsworth Town Council handled the request under the wrong legislation and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14 and failed to demonstrate that the exception in regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2017/0120) dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5(1)
16 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the retention and destruction policies in respect of minutes of practice meetings. The Surgery initially overlooked the request and therefore did not provide a response. Following a complaint to the Commissioner the Surgery recognised its error and provided a response albeit the delay meant it had failed to do so within the twenty working days required by the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Surgery breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within twenty working days. However as the Surgery has now provided a response the Commissioner does not required in respect of this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
16 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Development (DFID) for a copy of a report produced by KPMG in respect of the administration of how a research programme was being conducted by a Sri Lankan based non-governmental organisation, the International Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES). DFID withheld the information on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations), 40(2) (personal data), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemption contained at section 41(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Department for International Development
16 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the use of a door entry card by a specific individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that Derby City Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Derby City Council
16 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the British Museum’s (the museum) most recently agreed sponsorship arrangement with BP. The museum disclosed what recorded information it does hold to the complainant but confirmed that it held nothing further. In terms of the amount of sponsorship secured from BP, the museum refused to disclose this information citing section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the museum does not hold any further recorded information to that already disclosed and was correct to refuse to disclose the amount of sponsorship secured from BP under section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View British Museum
16 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Natural England information relating to one of its wildlife specialists and information in regards to its chairman. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and Natural England has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require Natural England to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0104 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Natural England
15 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Bristol (“the University”) about the cost of a study into using a technique known as The Lightning Process in children with chronic fatigue syndrome. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 22 is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation -issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 22 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View The University of Bristol
15 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to pre-application planning advice. East Hampshire District Council withheld the information under the exception for interests of the information provider – regulation 12(5)(f). During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority disclosed the information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Hampshire District Council disclosed the requested information outside the time for compliance and breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View East Hampshire District Council
15 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Emmbrook School’s policy of Sex and Relationship Education Policy and changes to the school’s policy to dealing with the death of a pupil. The Emmbrook School (the School) has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA (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 School must provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
11 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to housing maintenance and how the council has dealt with previous requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that Epping Forest District Council has correctly applied the exemption 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
View Epping Forest District Council
11 May 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a complete copy of the Care Council for Wales (‘CCW’) terminology database in a reusable format. The CCW stated that it did not hold the information requested and it was not held on its behalf by third party. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the CCW obtained a PDF copy of the information and extracted the text into an editable text document. The CCW maintained its position that it did not hold the information requested in a reusable format. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCW does not hold the information itself, nor is it held by Bangor University on behalf of the CCW in accordance with section 3(2)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Please note that both English and Welsh language versions of the decision notice are included in the PDF below.
Crynodeb: Gofynnodd yr achwynydd am gopi cyflawn o gronfa ddata terminoleg Cyngor Gofal Cymru (‘y Cyngor Gofal’) mewn fformat a allai gael ei a
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 3
11 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on library fines paid to Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts (LIPA). LIPA has failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner considers that LIPA breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to now respond to this request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts
11 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from London Councils information relating to training which is issued to parking adjudicators sitting at London Tribunals. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Councils does not hold the information for the purposes of the FOIA. Therefore the Commissioner does not require London Councils to take any further steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal. Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2017/0099) allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
11 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific organisation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Gambling Commission (GC) 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 Gambling Commission
11 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the name of the individual(s) involved in submitting a complaint about him to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (‘the PSOW’). Anglesey County Council (‘the Council’) withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) to the information. She does not require any steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0119 withdrawn. Please note that both English and Welsh language versions of the decision notice are included in the PDF below.
Crynodeb: Gofynnodd yr achwynydd am enw’r sawl a fu’n ymwneud â chyflwyno cwyn amdano i Ombwdsmon Gwasanaethau Cyhoeddus Cymru (‘yr Ombwdsmon’). Daliodd Cyngor Sir Ynys Môn (‘y Cyngor’) yr wybodaeth yn ôl o dan adran 40(2) o’r Ddeddf. Penderfyniad y Comisiynydd yw bod y Cyngor wedi cymhwyso adran 40(2) o’r Ddeddf at yr wybodae
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Isle of Anglesey County Council
11 May 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of all the comments received in response to a consultation on fracking. The Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) initially refused the request on the basis of regulation 13(1) – that the information would be personal data. Following an internal review, the OGA sought to apply regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request as manifestly unreasonable due to the volume of information involved. The Commissioner’s decision is that the regulation 12(4)(b) exception is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, she fins the OGA has not met the requirements of regulation 9 by offering advice and assistance to the complainant on how to refine the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with advice and assistance to refine the scope of his request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Oil and Gas Authority
11 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to complaints made to Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) and its compliance with the Equality Act 2010. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 14(1) (vexatious request). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust
11 May 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to a complaint he made about Northamptonshire County Council (the council) relating to a family member. The council responded that the information requested was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information was not held for part 4 of the request and that for part 3 of the request, the information was not held at the time the request was made. However during the Commissioner’s investigations, she found that information at part 3 of the request became available after the request was made, but prior to the internal review being carried out by the council. This information being the invoice from the investigator showing how much he charged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Either provide the complaint with the information requested at part 3 of his request or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with the FOIA. The public authority
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Northamptonshire County Council
11 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a Board Capability Review initiated by Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”). The Trust refused to provide the information by virtue of the exemptions at section 36(2)(b)(ii),36(2)(c), 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied the section 36(2)(b)(ii) exemption and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption and withholding the requested information. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Southern Health NHS Trust
10 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In three requests, the complainant has requested information about retrospective claims to the Continuing Healthcare scheme. Herts Valleys Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) has refused to comply with the requests which it says are vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests are vexatious and the CCG is correct not to comply with them. The Commissioner does not require the CCG to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
10 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to three previous requests for information made to the Home Office. 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
10 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to courts in England and Wales. 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 sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
10 May 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the London Borough of Lewisham (“the council”) information concerning its No Recourse to Public Funds (“NRPF”) training material, guidance and other related documents. The Council disclosed some information but withheld other information under section 36(2)(c). It also advised the complainant that it does not hold versions 1 and 2 of the NRPF guidance, only version 3 which was disclosed in a redacted format. Commencing with versions 1 and 2 of the NRPF guidance, the Commissioner has concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the council no longer holds this information. Therefore, in relation to this aspect of the complainant’s request, no further action is required. In terms of the application of section 36(2)(c), the Commissioner’s decision is that this exemption is not engaged. She therefore requires the council to disclose the information withheld under this exemption. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0117 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36
View Lewisham Council
10 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the charging decisions made by the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to Robert Black and the alleged murder of Genette Tate in 1978. The Crown Prosecution Service refused to disclose the information relying upon section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service has applied section 42(1) of FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner does not require the Crown Prosecution Service to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Crown Prosecution Service
10 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the decision to authorise the use of spit hoods or similar devices by police forces in England and Wales. 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
9 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Post Office under the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015 (ROPSI) to re-use the information in its ‘branch finder’ tool. The Post Office only permitted re-use under the Non-commercial Government Licence and the complainant also complained that it had failed to make the information available in a re-usable format. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Post Office breached regulation 12(2) by placing unnecessarily restrictive conditions on re-use. The Commissioner has also found that the Post Office breached regulation 11(1) by failing to make the information available in a machine readable format; regulation 8(1) by failing to respond to the request within a reasonable time; and regulation 17(3) by failing to complete an internal review within a reasonable time. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: RPSI 11(1); RPSI 12(2); RPSI 17(3); RPSI 8(1)
View Post Office
9 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the loading and unloading leaflet on Brighton & Hove City Council’s website. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Brighton & Hove City Council does not hold further requested information. She does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Brighton and Hove City Council
9 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Fenland District Council (the council) relating to investigations and decisions regarding a planning enforcement matter in 2006. The council responded to say that due to the time that has elapsed, it could not locate the information sought. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Fenland District Council
9 May 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (“the Council”) for copies of policies and legislation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 21 (information reasonably accessible by other means) of the FOIA. However, the Council has breached section 10 as it failed to provide a substantive response within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0118 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 21
View Waltham Forest Council
9 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to an alleged pollution incident, including the name of the company Yorkshire Water was prosecuting. Yorkshire Water provided some of the requested information, however it refused to provide the name of the company to be prosecuted on the basis that it did not constitute environmental information. The Commissioner finds that within the context of the request, the name of the company does constitute environmental information. By failing to provide a response to this element of the request within the time limits established by the Regulations Yorkshire Water has breached regulation 5(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority issue a response under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Yorkshire Water
9 May 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Middlesbrough Borough Council about Passenger Carrying Vehicle enforcement exercises. The Council disclosed some held information, and withheld some under section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The complainant subsequently disputed the application of section 42(1), and whether any further relevant information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 42(1) to the withheld information, and that no further relevant information is held. However the Council has breached section 10(1) by providing its response out of time. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 42
View Middlesbrough Council
8 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the parts of his complaint file that can be released under FOIA. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) relied on the exemptions section 40 (the information is personal data) and section 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) to withhold the information. In particular the PHSO cited the statutory prohibition on disclosure created by the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (PCA).The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) and the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman