8 May 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Dorset Police about the cost of insurance in relation to the defence of civil litigation claims. Dorset Police said it did not hold the requested information because this is held by the third party insurer. The Commissioner’s decision, on the balance of probabilities, is that Dorset Police does not hold the requested information. However, by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt, Dorset Police breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA (time for compliance). The Commissioner does not require Dorset Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Dorset Police
8 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the costs incurred by Suffolk Coastal District Council (the council) in the course of terminating a contract with a third party contractor. The council provided some information but refused to provide the remainder under section 43(2) ‘commercial interests’ of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the council revised its position and argued that the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) rather than the FOIA applied, although it maintained that the disputed cost figure should continue to be withheld. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOIA rather than the EIR is the correct access legislation and further finds that section 43(2) is not engaged in the specific circumstances of this case.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information. 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 Comm
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Mid Suffolk District Council
8 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Nolan principles. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that PHSO is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) and is satisfied that PHSO met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
8 May 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about orders for the audits of records. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that PHSO is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1). However the Commissioner is not satisfied that PHSO met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The PHSO is required to provide appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant pursuant to the duty provided by section 16 of the FOIA. The advice and assistance should be given with a view to determining what, if any, information relevant to the request can be provided within the appropriate costs limit and to allow the complainant to make a new request should thi
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
7 May 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a review carried out into Yorkshire Ripper material. West Yorkshire Police disclosed some information and withheld some under sections 30(1) and (2) (Investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. It also neither confirmed nor denied holding information by virtue of section 30(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Police has applied sections 30(1)(a) and (b) and 30(3) of FOIA appropriately. However, the Commissioner considers that West Yorkshire Police has breached sections 10(1) (time for compliance) and 17(1) (refusal of a request) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require West Yorkshire Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 30; FOI 30
View West Yorkshire Police
6 May 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the council to disclose its entire investigation file into the ceiling collapse at the Apollo Theatre, London on 19 December 2013. The council refused to disclose this information citing regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(d) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council also claimed a late reliance on regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner first considered the application of regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR and she has decided that this exception has been applied appropriately to all the withheld information. She therefore does not need to consider any other exceptions cited or require any further action to be taken by the council. It was however noted that the council failed to carry out an internal review within 40 working days of receipt. The Commissioner has therefore recorded a breach of regulation 11 of the EIR in this case.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(b)
View Westminster Council
4 May 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence between Bridgend County Borough Council (‘the Council’) and the Welsh Language Commissioner (‘WLC’) regarding the Council’s challenge to the imposition of Welsh language standards. The Council withheld the information requested under section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 42 of the FOIA to the withheld information. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Bridgend County Borough Council
4 May 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Nick Clegg’s entitlement to the Public Duties Cost Allowance (“PDCA”) from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office refused to provide it citing section 21 (information accessible by other means) and section 35 (formulation/development of government policy). The complainant disputed the Cabinet Office’s use of section 35. The Cabinet Office upheld its use of section 35 following internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 35 as its basis for withholding the information to which it has been applied. However, the Cabinet Office contravened its obligations under section 10 (Time for compliance) when it failed to provide a response within a reasonable time having extended the time for compliance in order to consider the balance of public interest test in respect of section 35. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0093 allowed in part. Information Tribunal appeal GI
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
4 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about printing options. Fowey River Practice (‘the Practice’) has refused to comply with the request which it says is vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the Practice is not obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require the Practice to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
4 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various pieces of information about a particular property. Carmarthenshire County Council (‘the Council’) stated it did not hold some of the information requested and withheld other information under regulations 12(5)(b) and 13 of the EIR and section 40(2) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council acknowledged that some of the information requested constituted the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner has concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information relating to one part of the request. The Commissioner has also determined that the remaining withheld information is exempt from disclosure under regulation 5(3) and 13 of the EIR of FOIA as it contains the personal data of the complainant and the personal data of third parties. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5
View Carmarthenshire County Council
4 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for the HSE’s report on the accident at the Smiler rollercoaster, Alton Towers. The HSE provided the complainant with the report but made redactions under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE has correctly applied section 40(2) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Health and Safety Executive
3 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for information on separate dates with regards to roadworks, traffic and congestion in Sandbach. Cheshire East County Council (the council) aggregated the two requests and refused them under section 12 of the FOIA as it considered to respond would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to the aggregated requests and has complied with section 16 of the FOIA in providing appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Cheshire East Council
3 May 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the British Business Bank in relation to its partnership with a loan company called Funding Circle. The British Business Bank refused part of the request under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) because it considered disclosure would prejudice commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) is engaged and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The British Business Bank did breach section 17(1) by providing its refusal notice after 20 working days. No steps are required for the British Business Bank to comply with this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 43
View British Business Bank
3 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the council to disclose the financial model used to calculate and provide the figures in the viability assessment for the regeneration of the Westbury estate. The council initially provided some information and withheld other information citing regulations 12(4)(d), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council claimed a late reliance on regulation 12(4)(b) and asked for the application of this exception to be considered in the first instance. The Commissioner’s decision is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR in this case. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Lambeth
2 May 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for certain parts of a contract between it and BAE Systems concerning the Type 26 Global Combat Ships. The MOD provided the complainant with the information he requested but redacted certain parts on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the majority of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2). The only exception to this finding is in respect of the small portions of information which although the MOD had sought to withhold had in fact already been disclosed to the complainant in response to an earlier request. The Commissioner has also concluded that the MOD breached section 17(3) of FOIA given the time it took to complete its public interest considerations.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Ministry of Defence
2 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to work carried out by a contractor on a crematorium owned by the council. The council said that it had provided all of the relevant information to the complainant. The complainant disagrees and considers that further information should be held by the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities no further information is held by the council falling within the scope of his requests. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0112 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View North Somerset Council
2 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made requests for information relating to the funding of the Mersey tunnel. Merseytravel refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) and during the Commissioner’s investigation cited section 14(2) of the FOIA to the second part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Merseytravel has correctly applied the vexatious provision at section 14(1) of the FOIA to the whole of the request but has incorrectly applied 14(2) of the FOIA to the second part of the request. She does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0103 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
2 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a meeting in November 2015 between Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, and the then Home Secretary, Theresa May. The Home Office refused to disclose the information, citing the exemption at section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
2 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a grievance report which was discussed by the council on 27 June 2016. The council refused the request on the basis that it had received a letter from a solicitor threatening legal action if the document was disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt under section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0102 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
2 May 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the prescribing of Co-proxamol. The Blackpool Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) confirmed that they did not hold any further information. The complainant considered that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require the CCG to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Blackpool Clinical Commissioning Group
27 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to street light defects along Holloway Road. TfL provided the complainant with some information but said that it was unable to comply with the request fully as to do so would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL was correct to apply section 12 FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. It did also provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Transport for London
27 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) correspondence relating to the Carnegie Library, Herne Hill (“the library”). The Council applied the exception under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable on grounds of cost) as it considered that complying with the request would place an unreasonable burden on the Council’s resources. With regard to the public interest test, the Council found that the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exception because of the resources that would be needed to comply with the requests, and explained that some information was already in the public domain. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, the Commissioner considers that the Council has not met its obligations under regulation 9(1) by its failure to provide sufficient advice and assistance to the complainant. Furt
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 9(1)
View London Borough of Lambeth
27 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a "two-day retreat" event which was held for the leads of England's 44 Sustainability and Transformation Plan footprint areas to discuss next steps in the STP process. NHS England has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that the NHS England breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. NHS England must provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
27 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the current national review of congenital heart disease services. NHS England failed to respond to this request for information within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner considers that the NHS England breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
27 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of financial support that the Welsh Government had given to a particular company. The Welsh Government withheld the information under section 43(2) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Welsh Government withdrew reliance on section 43 and stated that it considered sections 29(1)(b) and 36(2)(c) to apply to the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has incorrectly withheld the requested information under sections 29(1)(b) and 36(2)(c). She also finds that the Welsh Government met its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA during the internal review. The Commissioner requires the Welsh Government to disclose the information withheld under sections 29(1)(b) and 36(2)(c) to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 29; FOI 36
View Welsh Government
27 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of financial support that the Welsh Government agreed with a particular company. The Welsh Government withheld the information under section 43(2) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Welsh Government withdrew reliance on section 43 and stated that it considered sections 29(1)(b) and 36(2)(c) to apply to the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has incorrectly withheld the information under sections 29(1)(b) and 36(2)(c). The Commissioner requires the Welsh Government to disclose the information withheld under sections 29(1)(b) and 36(2)(c) to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 29; FOI 36
View Welsh Government
27 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Manchester Airport and taxi/private hire licensing. Manchester disclosed some information and withheld a copy of a draft agreement under the exemptions for information provided in confidence (section 41) and prejudice to commercial interests (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Manchester City Council disclosed the relevant information it held and complied with section 1(1) but did not do this in accordance with the time limit and breached section 10(1); it also failed to demonstrate that the exemptions in section 41 and section 43(2) of the FOIA are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 41; FOI 43
View Manchester City Council
27 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an eleven-part request to Manchester City Council which relates to an Expression of Interest made by Manchester Active Lifestyles Community Interest Company, together with information concerning Sport England’s Waterfall funding, the naming rights of the Sportcity estate and the contracting out of School Swimming, Major Sports Events and Sports Development which were challenged in the Expression of Interest. The Commissioner has decided that Manchester City Council does not hold the information which the complainant seeks at parts 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of his request. She has decided that the Council is entitled to rely on section 42 of the FOIA in respect of a Report made by the City Solicitor to the Council’s Commercial Board – part 4 of the complainant’s request, and she has decided that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA in respect of parts 9, 10 and 11 of the complainant’s request. In respect of parts 9, 10 and 11 of the complainant’s r
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 42
View Manchester City Council
27 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to various job titles and departments at Dudley and West Midlands Zoological Society Limited (DWMZS). The Commissioner’s decision is that DWMZS is a public authority for the purposes of FOIA pursuant to section 6 of the FOIA. DWMZS should now issue a response to the complainant ensuring it complies with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 6
27 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information about a meeting between a particular FCO Minister and Jonathan Arkush, President of the Board of Deputies. The FCO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but explained that it needed additional time to consider the balance of the public interest test. To date, the FCO has failed to complete its public interest test deliberations. By failing to complete these deliberations within a reasonable timeframe the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO has breached section 17(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner therefore requires the FCO to provide the complainant with a substantive response to his request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
27 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for correspondence between it and the US State Department concerning a document known as ‘The Abu Nidal Handbook.’ The FCO provided the complainant with some of the information falling within the scope of this request but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of sections 23(1) (security bodies) and 27(2) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO is entitled to rely on these exemptions to withhold the remaining requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 27
27 Apr 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to health and safety at Gracelands CMS Ltd. The Commissioner’s decision is that Epping Forest District Council has incorrectly applied the exemption for commercial interests at section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose specified documents and to issue a fresh response in relation to the health and safety documents, that fall within the scope of the request, associated with the remaining nine specified contracts with Gracelands CMS Ltd, providing appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant, to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View Epping Forest District Council
27 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about whether the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) has begun to determine if Tony Blair has committed the common law criminal offence of misconduct in public office over decisions he took which resulted in the military invasion of Iraq in 2003. The MPS would neither confirm nor deny holding any information citing the exemptions at sections 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(5)(b)(i) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on 40(5)(b)(i) to neither confirm nor deny whether any information is held; she did not therefore consider section 30(3). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
27 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to gender equality. The Commissioner’s decision is that Epping Forest District Council provided it’s Equality Policy outside of the statutory time limit for responding to requests in breach of section 10(1) of the FOIA. She has also decided that information relating to the number of male and female heating engineers and plumbers is not held for the purposes of FOIA by virtue of section 3(2)(b). She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 3
View Epping Forest District Council
27 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report in to the treatment of a group of whistle-blowers. The Council applied section 36(2)(b) to the report in its entirety and, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it also applied section 40(2) to some parts of the report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the majority of the report. There is however a limited amount of information which the Commissioner has found cannot be withheld under either section 40(2) or section 36(2)(b) and therefore should be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information set out in the confidential annexe. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/3037/2017 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Wirral Council
27 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested anonymised information about recorded murder offences from Dyfed-Powys Police (“DPP”). DPP provided some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 40(2) (personal information), 30(1)(a) (investigations and proceedings) and 38(1)(health and safety) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is partially engaged; she finds that section 30(1) is engaged but that the public interest in disclosure outweighs that in maintaining the exemption; she finds that section 38(1) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires DPP to disclose the information withheld for three of the six cases concerned.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 38; FOI 40
View Dyfed-Powys Police
27 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Natural England relating to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The Commissioner’s decision is that Natural England has provided the complainant with all the information it holds falling within the scope of requests 1-4. In relation to request 5, the Commissioner is satisfied that the information is publically available and reasonably accessible to the complainant in accordance with regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires Natural England to take no steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Natural England
27 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request to the Council for all correspondence from officers and councillors relating to the Groves chapel planning applications. The Council refused to comply with the request under regulation 12(4)(b) EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has dealt with this request under the correct access regime and that it correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) EIR to the request. It also complied with regulation 9 in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 2(1); EIR 9
View York City Council
26 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the recent court case concerning the football player Adam Johnson. Durham Police withheld the information under sections 30(1) (investigations), 38 (health and safety) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Durham Police have applied section 30(1) of FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner does not require Durham Police to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Durham Constabulary
26 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a civil court claim. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire (OPCC) relied on section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests) to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OPCC correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
26 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested about a meeting between Durham Police and Sunderland Association Football Club regarding allegations against one of its footballers. Durham Police withheld the information under sections 30(1) (investigations), 38 (health and safety) and 40(2) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Durham Police has applied section 30(1) of FOIA appropriately.
The Commissioner does not require Durham Constabulary to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Durham Constabulary
26 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested all proposals that have been submitted in respect of the development of South Quay, Pembrokeshire. Pembrokeshire County Council provided some information, but refused the remainder by virtue of regulations 12(5)(c), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Pembrokeshire County Council has correctly relied on regulation 12(5)(e) in respect of the remaining information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Pembrokeshire County Council
26 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the delegation of responsibility for the site management of the Thames Valley Police Headquarters site and relating to the management of the parking regime. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (Office of the PCC) for Thames Valley was unable to determine what the information described in part (1) of the request might be, and requested clarification from the complainant. With respect to the second part of the request, it said that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Office of the PCC has responded to the first part of the complainant’s request as far as it is able, given the nature of the initial request and the clarification it has obtained from the complainant. She is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold information within the scope of part (2) of the request. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
26 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Communities and Local Government (the Department) concerning the decision to cease Cornish Language funding. The Department initially relied on section 36 to withhold the requested information. However, during the course of this investigation, it instead sought to rely on section 35. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was entitled to rely of section 35 to withhold the requested information. However, in taking 114 working days to complete the public interest test and respond fully to the request, the Commissioner finds that the Department has breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Department to take any steps in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
26 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in two requests concerning the assessments and reasons surrounding decisions to charge his now deceased sister in respect of her social care arrangements with North Yorkshire County Council (the council). The council initially responded withholding the information under section 14 and section 42 of the FOIA as it considered the requests to be vexatious, and some of the information to be covered by legal professional privilege. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council also sought to rely on section 41 as the information was confidential. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on section 14 not to comply with the requests. However, in responding to one of the requests outside the 20 working day time frame, the Commissioner finds that the council failed to comply with section 10. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps in this case. This decision notice is currently under appeal to
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View North Yorkshire County Council
26 Apr 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested salary, pay scale, car lease and pension contributions for senior employees of Powys County Council (the council). The council provided some information and withheld the remainder under section 40(2) and section 21 as the information was either third party personal data, or was otherwise reasonably accessible to the applicant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not correctly engage section 21 with regard to the salary, pay scale and pension information of employees earning over £60,000. The Commissioner also found that the council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the outstanding requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take steps to ensure compliance with section 21.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40
View Powys County Council
25 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) relating to a complaint from a named individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 40(5) is applicable and therefore the FCA can neither confirm nor deny if the requested information is held as to do so would be a disclosure of personal data. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Financial Conduct Authority
25 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Northumbria Police’s investigation into a murder attempt made on him in 1999, for which nobody has been charged. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and Northumbria Police was entitled to apply section 14 of the FOIA to refuse the request. She also considers that Northumbria Police was not obliged to issue a refusal notice in respect of the request, in accordance with section 17(6) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Northumbria Police
25 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) relating to a complaint from a named individual. The FOS refused to either confirm or deny if the information was held by virtue of section 40 and 36 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOS has correctly applied the provision at section 40(5) to neither confirm nor deny if the requested information is held as to do so would be a disclosure of personal data. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
25 Apr 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests the complainant has requested information from Wigan Borough Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) about particular personal data held and shared, and about an allegation of racial abuse at a specific GP surgery. 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 two requests are vexatious and the CCG is not obliged to comply with them under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The CCG provided adequate advice and assistance and complied with its obligation under section 16(1). The CCG’s refusal of request 2 breached section 17(5). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2017/0110) allowed .
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Wigan Borough Clinical Commissioning Group