30 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) about its Band 3 Inspectors. The HSE has refused to disclose the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it says it is the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE is correct to withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Health and Safety Executive
30 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an “outcome report” submitted to the Department for Work and Pensions by one of its suppliers. The Department for Work and Pensions relied on section 43 (commercial interests) to withhold the report. The Commissioner’s decision is that this reliance on section 43 is erroneous. The Commissioner requires the public authority to release the withheld information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0088 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to complaints registered on specific enforcement files. The Commissioner’s decision is that Huntingdonshire District Council has correctly applied the exception for manifestly unreasonable requests at regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/711/2018 permission to appeal refused.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Huntingdonshire District Council
30 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Rotherham Development Plan. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) cited section 21 of the FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 21(1) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response under the FOIA or EIR.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
30 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the GDC for details of cases considered by the GDC’s Practice Committee that had been given the “No Order” designation. The GDC disclosed some of the requested information to the complainant but withheld some information under the section 40(2) (personal information) and section 31 exemptions. The complainant also complained that the GDC held further information relevant to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GDC has disclosed all of the information to which the complainant is entitled under FOIA. Where information has been withheld the Commissioner is satisfied that the section 40(2) exemption was correctly applied. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View General Dental Council
30 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the closed file WO 71/1062. The National Archives (TNA) released some information and refused to provide the remaining information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation TNA also applied section 38 (health and safety) to the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA 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/2017/0091) withdrawn .
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The National Archives
30 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to taxi expenses. The BBC provided the complainant with some information but said that some of the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall within the scope of FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
29 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about unduly lenient sentences. The Attorney General’s Office applied section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests) to the request. The complainant complained about the application of section 14(1) of the FOIA and also that the AGO had not complied with section 16 (duty to provide advice and assistance) of the FOI. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Attorney General’s Office has applied section 14(1) of the FOIA appropriately. She also considers that the Attorney General’s Office has not breached section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Attorney General’s Office to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 16
View Attorney General's Office
29 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for communications between the Prince of Wales and FCO Ministers about the UN Climate Change Conference which took place in Paris in 2015. The FCO refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 37(2) of FOIA and regulation 13(5)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO is entitled to rely on section 37(2). However, she has also concluded that some of the requested information, if held, would constitute environmental information as defined by the EIR. In respect of such information the Commissioner has concluded that regulation 13(5)(a) is not engaged.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; FOI 37
29 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) copies of any correspondence held between the Prince of Wales and (a) Nick Brown and (b) Margaret Beckett, which referred to foot-and-mouth disease. Defra refused to confirm or deny whether information relevant to either of the requests was held, citing the exemptions in section 37(2) (communications with the Royal Family), section 40(5) (third party personal data) and section 41(2) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the requests may cover both environmental and non-environmental information and should therefore have been dealt with under the EIR and FOIA respectively. She has further found that Defra breached section 10(1) of FOIA and regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to issue a response in accordance with each piece of legislation within the specified timeframe. Insofar as FOIA applies, the Commissioner considers that Defra is entitled to ne
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1); EIR 5(2); FOI 10; FOI 37
28 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant had requested copies of communications between Keith Vaz MP and the Speaker's Office from June 2009 to 14 September 2016.The complainant alleges that the House of Commons breach its duty to him to provide advice and assistance when handling the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that House of Commons did not breach its duty to provide advice and assistance within the meaning in section 16 FOIA in its handling of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
28 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Southwark Council (“the Council”) relating to a question submitted to Council Assembly, the procedure when making a complaint against the Monitoring Officer and a decision made by the Standards Committee. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided the complainant with all the information it holds that falls within the scope of requests 1 and 2. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Southwark Council
28 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a transport appraisal relating to the development of a site in the centre of York. The Council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(d) – material in the course of completion. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception is engaged and can be maintained in the public interest. The Council is therefore entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(d) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View York City Council
28 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) broadly relating to habitual complainers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Southwark Council
28 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a technical report relating to a caravan site. Hastings Borough Council initially withheld the information under the FOIA exemption for information provided in confidence (section 41) but, during the Commissioner’s investigation reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld the information under the exceptions for confidentiality of proceedings (regulation 12(5)(d)), commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)) and interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Hastings Borough Council breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14 and failed to demonstrate that the exceptions in regulations 12(5)(d), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0084 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 14; EIR 5(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
28 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HMRC about exchanges of information between the United Kingdom and countries/territories with which HMRC has agreements covering such exchanges. HMRC refused to comply with the request, relying on section 14(1), vexatious in respect of the burden imposed on HMRC. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has incorrectly relied on section 14(1) to refuse this request and it is now required to issue a fresh response in accordance with the FOIA without relying on the procedural exemption provided by section 14(1). 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 14
28 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the date on which a final case stated had been served on him, together with disclosure of the method of its delivery. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice had applied section 1(1) of the FOIA legislation correctly in declaring to the complainant what relevant information the Ministry of Justice did, and did not, hold. She therefore does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
28 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the trading standards section of the council about a complaint made by him about a specific company. The council has applied section 44 of the Act (statutory prohibition), on the grounds that section 237 of the Enterprise Act 2002 provides a statutory prohibition on it disclosing the information it holds to him. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 44 to the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0085 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Kent County Council
28 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0087 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/2690/2018 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View The National Archives
28 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the indemnity details of a dentist. Under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA the General Dental Council (GDC) neither confirms nor denies that it holds this information, which it says would be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GDC is correct to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information, and that the exemption under section 40(5)(b)(i) is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the GDC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View General Dental Council
28 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Telford & Wrekin Council refused to provide some of the requested information it held. It based this refusal on the following exemptions; sections 38 (health and safety), 40 (2) (personal data), 41 (information provided in confidence), 42 (legal professional privilege) and 43 (commercial sensitivity).The Commissioner’s decision is that Telford & Wrekin Council has not persuaded her that the aforesaid exemptions (save for section 40 (2) are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose, to the complainant, the information that it has withheld by reference to the aforesaid sections save it is not to disclose information it has withheld by reference to section 40(2). Information Tribunal appeal FS50614046 disposed of by consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 42; FOI 43
View Telford and Wrekin Council
28 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)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 withheld other information under section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) is engaged but that the public interest is withholding the information does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. She requires the Council to disclose to the complainant the information that it has withheld under section 36(2)(c). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0082 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Lewisham Council
28 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Hart District Council’s outsourcing agreement with Everyone Active. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hart District Council has correctly applied the exemption for commercial interests at section 43(2) of the FOIA to Appendix E of the requested contract. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Hart District Council
28 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the identity of a former councillor who had been in arrears of his/her council tax payments during his/her period of office. The Council has withheld this information in reliance on section 40(2) of the FOIA on the grounds that it is the ex-councillor’s personal data and it would be unfair to the ex-councillor to place this information into the public domain. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Riding of Yorkshire Council has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the information it is withholding from the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0071 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
28 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the relocation of Newbiggin Library. Northumberland County Council disclosed some information and confirmed that other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumberland County Council has correctly confirmed that information is not held and complied with regulation 5(1) but that it wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and issued a late response, breaching regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Northumberland County Council
27 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Southwark Council copies of all leaseholder loan applications for the period January 2016 to the present day. Southwark Council refused to provide the requested information citing Section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests).The Commissioner’s decision is that Southwark Council has correctly applied Section 14(1).The Commissioner does not require Southwark Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Southwark Council
27 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on parking at Macclesfield District General Hospital, specifically the number of people using car parks, the revenue generated and the number of penalties issued. East Cheshire NHS Trust provided most of the requested information but withheld the number of penalty charge notices issued as it considered this would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the parking company. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has incorrectly applied the provisions of section 43 and the exemption is not engaged. She now requires the Trust to disclose this information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View East Cheshire NHS Trust
27 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested minutes of a specified meeting from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). By the date of this notice, the MOJ has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. She requires the MOJ to respond to the request in accordance with the obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
27 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the resignation letters of Cllr Andrew Sowerby and anybody else who had resigned from Pittington Parish Council since May 2013. Pittington Parish Council withheld the information, citing section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Pittington Parish Council has applied section 40(2) of FOIA appropriately. However, the Commissioner considers that Pittington Parish Council has breached sections 10(1) (time for compliance) and 17(1)(b) (request for information) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Pittington Parish Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
27 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the processing of FOIA requests. The City of York Council (the Council) says that this information is already publicly available on their website and is therefore exempt from disclosure under the FOIA, under section 21. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 21 of the FOIA and does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View York City Council
27 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on commissions paid to agents for patients treated where this was paid for by an overseas government. Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust refused to provide this information on the basis that it would prejudice its commercial interests (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to demonstrate the causal link between disclosure of the information and the stated prejudice to its commercial interests. She therefore finds section 43(2) is not engaged.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
27 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a particular recruitment process including a copy of the interview notes for each candidate for a job for which he was unsuccessful. LBS provided the complainant with some information but refused to disclose the remainder of the information on the basis that it was the personal data of the other candidates and was therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the FOIA. LBS also applied the exemption at section 41 of the FOIA on the basis that the information contained within the withheld information was provided to it in confidence. The Commissioner finds that LBS was correct in it’s application of section 40(2) of the FOIA and did not therefore go on to consider the application of section 41. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken by LBS.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View London Borough of Sutton
23 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about particular policies and procedures. AW Surgeries has released some information and withheld some under section 40(2) of the FOIA because it considers it to be the personal data of third persons. The complainant considers that AW Surgeries holds additional, relevant information that it has not disclosed and has wrongly applied section 40(2) to the information it has withheld. The Commissioner’s decision is that: On the balance of probabilities, AW Surgeries holds no further information within the scope of requests [1], [2] and [3] that it has not disclosed and it has therefore complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA with respect to these requests. On the balance of probabilities, AW Surgeries does not hold any information falling within the scope of request [4]. AW Surgeries holds further information falling within the scope of request [5] and has breached section 1(1)(a) because it confirmed to the complainant that
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
23 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Transport for London (TfL) on the decision to rename Crossrail. TfL identified information within the scope of the request and provided some of this to the complainant but withheld some information on the basis of section 37(1)(a). The Commissioner sought to establish if the exemption had been applied correctly and whether TfL had identified all relevant information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL failed to initially identify all information within the scope of the request but she is satisfied it has now done so. For the information withheld by TfL she considers the section 37(1)(a) exemption is engaged and she therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 37
View Transport for London
23 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”) relating to meetings with the Council’s Highways, Planning and Environment (waste collection and street cleaning) sections. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request beyond what has been disclosed. However, she has found the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR (time for compliance) by failing to provide the requested information within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
23 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Haringey Council (“the Council”) relating to a calculation referred to in a court judgement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided the complainant with the information it holds that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Haringey Council
23 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complaints of bias. The BBC explained that the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by theBBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall within the scope of FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
23 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) relating to the Council’s Habitual Complainants Policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it is a repeated request and falls under section 14(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Southwark Council
23 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Southwark Council copies of all leaseholder application forms for loans in respect of major works/service charge arrears for the periods 2012 and 2010-2013.
Southwark Council refused to provide the requested information citing Section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests).
The Commissioner’s decision is that Southwark Council has correctly applied Section 14(1).
The Commissioner does not require Southwark Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Southwark Council
23 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information and correspondence relating to flooding in or around Lower Hartshay, guidelines to be considered when determining whether to exercise Section 25 (Land Drainage Act 1991) enforcement powers, and details of all flood incidents where Derbyshire County Council has exercised its discretionary enforcement powers. The Commissioner’s decision is that Derbyshire County Council has complied with regulation 9(1) of the EIR in relation to providing advice and assistance, and has provided responses as soon as possible in accordance with regulations 5(2) and 14(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 9(1)
View Derbyshire County Council
23 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme. The public authority published some of the information held within the scope of the request following the application of the exemption contained at section 22(1) FOIA to that information. It withheld the remaining information in reliance on the exemptions contained at sections 35(1)(a), 40(2) and 43(2) FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption contained at section 35(1)(a) FOIA as the basis for withholding the remaining information held within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
23 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Animal and Plant Health Agency (“APHA”) about bovine tuberculosis cultures. As an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (“DEFRA”), APHA does not constitute a public authority for the purposes of FOIA and EIR and so this notice is issued to its parent Department. The Commissioner’s decision is that APHA did not deal with the requests for information in accordance with the EIR in the following way: it failed to provide a response to the requests within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days as set out in regulation 5(2) of the EIR. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner requires APHA to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
23 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the FOS for information relating to a complaint he had made about a particular company. The FOS refused to disclose the information under FOIA as it said the information requested was the complainant’s own personal data and therefore the absolute exemption at section 40(1) FOIA applied. It did however confirm that it was willing to process the request under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and asked the complainant to make payment of a £10 processing fee under that legislation. This is however outside the scope of this Decision Notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOS has correctly applied section 40(1) FOIA in this case to the majority of the withheld information. Where the Commissioner does not consider that section 40(1) FOIA applies she has proactively applied section 21 FOIA as she considers that this information would already be reasonably accessible to the complainant. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Trib
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40
23 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an electronic copy of the document containing the penalty fare appeals criteria used by the Independent Appeals Service and approved by the Department for Transport (DfT). The DfT refused to disclose the requested information under section 31(1)(c), 41, 43(2) and 44(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has correctly applied section 44 (1)(a) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0052 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/466/2018 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Department for Transport
23 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests, the complainant has requested information from the BBC about incidents of inappropriate sexual behaviour and incidents of nudity. The BBC provided the complainant with web links to where some information relating to the first request is published. It withheld some information under section 22(1) of the FOIA because this information was intended for future publication. With regard to the second request, the BBC initially said it holds no relevant information. During the Commissioner’s investigation the BBC confirmed that it was not obliged to comply with the second request because to establish whether or not it holds relevant information would exceed the appropriate cost limit under section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC: correctly applied section 22(1) to Request 1 and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption; is not obliged to confirm or deny it holds information within the scope of Request 2 as to do so would exc
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 22
View BBC
23 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) about a publication. PHSO says it does not hold the specific information that has been requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that PHSO does not hold the requested information and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1). The Commissioner finds that PHSO breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. Finally, she has found there has been no beach of section 16(1) (advice and assistance). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
23 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the proposed Seaway Car Park development in Southend-on-Sea. Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (the “Council”). The Council initially refused to provide it under section 43 of the FOIA. At internal review, it reconsidered the matter under the EIR. It provided some information but withheld the remainder under 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion), regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) and regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(d) and regulation 12(5)(e) as its basis for withholding the information that remains withheld. However, it contravened its obligations under regulation 5(2) and regulation 14(2) of the EIR when it failed to provide a refusal to the request within 20 working days. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Southend-on-Sea City Council
23 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about patients with coeliac disease. The Practice Group refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA as to do so would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Practice Group was correct to apply section 12(1) to the request. However, the Commissioner has also decided that the Practice Group breached section 16(1) as it did not offer the complainant appropriate advice and assistance with a view to clarifying and refining his request so that it could be managed within the cost limit. The complainant has confirmed that he needed the information at the time he requested it, and has no use for it at this point. The Commissioner therefore does not require the Practice Group take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
23 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to correspondence between NHS England and a particular dental practice. NHS England refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA as it said that it would exceed the cost limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England was correct to apply section 12 FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. It did not however provide the complainant with sufficient advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires NHS England to provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance or explain why this would not be possible.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View NHS England
23 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested average care package cost information regarding Leonard Cheshire Disability (“LCD”). Surrey County Council (the “Council”) provided some detail but refused to provide much of the information citing section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) as its basis for doing so. Following correspondence with the Commissioner, the Council disclosed the requested information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 43(2) as its basis for withholding the requested information. In failing to provide the information within 20 working days following the request, the Council contravened the requirements of section 1 and section 10 of the Act. Given that the Council has already disclosed the information, no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 43
View Surrey County Council