23 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the financial modelling of the reforms to junior doctor contracts. The DoH refused to disclose the requested information under section 35(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) FOIA was applied correctly to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department of Health and Social Care
23 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Brent (“the Council”) relating to correspondence that the Council has had with his neighbour. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 13(5)(a) (neither confirm nor deny in relation to personal data) of the EIR to the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5a)
View London Borough of Brent
23 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of a departure agreement with a former employee of the council. The council provided a redacted copy of the agreement however it refused to provide the remainder on the basis that section 40(2) of the FOI Act applies (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 40(2) to the withheld information. She has however decided that the council failed to comply with the requirements of section 10(1) (time for response) to the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Liverpool City Council
23 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the entire appeal file relating to his appeal against Dart Harbour and Navigation Authority (DHNA). The DfT provided the complainant with some information but made redactions under section 40(1) and (2) FOIA. It also withheld some information under section 42 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(1) and 42 FOIA were applied correctly to the withheld information. The Commissioner also considers that the majority of the redactions that were made under section 40(2) FOIA were correct, apart from those made to the name of the Harbour Master at DHNA and the Chair of the Authority and Board members. The Commissioner requires the DfT to remove the redactions to the name of the Harbour Master at DHNA and the Chair of the Authority and Board members. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0063 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 42
View Department for Transport
23 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a variety of recorded information which relates to the Kirklees Metropolitan Council’s relationship with Kirklees Active Leisure. The Council has provided the complainant with much of the information he seeks, including references to locations on the Council’s website where relevant information can be readily accessed. Notwithstanding its disclosure of information, the Council has withheld two paragraphs of a report made to its Cabinet on 8 November 2011, entitled ‘Kirklees Sport and Leisure Facility Management – Options Appraisal and Update on Renewal Process’. The Council has relied on section 42 of the FOIA to withhold these paragraphs, on the grounds that the information they contain attracts legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kirklees Metropolitan Council has properly applied section 42 to the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
23 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Cabinet Office. He is sight impaired and does not have ready access to the internet. The complainant also had difficulty in drawing this directly to the Cabinet Office’s attention. He raised concerns with the Commissioner about the difficulties he experienced in making this request. Once the Commissioner drew this matter to Cabinet Office’s attention, it took steps to improve its processes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office contravened the requirements of section 16 of the FOIA (advice and assistance) when handling this request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 13
View Cabinet Office
22 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the council to disclose the instructions given and the legal advice it received from a barrister in connection to an employment dispute with a former member of staff. The council refused to disclose the requested information citing section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 42 of the FOIA applies to the withheld information. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View London Borough of Brent
22 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the accounts of Stafford Borough Council (the Council). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it has not provided a response to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to issue a response to the complainant under the Act.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Stafford Borough Council
22 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the roll out schedule of Universal Credit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take to issue a substantive response to the complainant under the Act by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
22 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from North Norfolk Academy Trust (“NNAT”) regarding meetings of NNAT in 2014, 2015 and 2016. The Commissioner’s decision is that NNAT has correctly applied sections 36 and 43(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information and has correctly applied section 40(2) to some of the withheld information. The Commissioner has also decided that section 21, which was initially applied, was not engaged and that section 22 is also not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: To disclose the withheld information in respect of which the Commissioner has decided that section 40(2) is not engaged. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 22
22 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the spellings used in the literacy test taken by prospective trainee teachers over a 12 month period. He asked for each spelling and data showing which were mostly misspelt and which were mostly spelt correctly. For each of the spellings mostly misspelt he required the absolute number of candidates and percentage of candidates for each word. The DfE refused to disclose the requested information citing section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE acted appropriately by refusing to disclose the requested information under section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. As a result she does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36
View Department for Education
22 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the University of Cambridge (the University) information regarding entry admissions to the Bachelor of Theology at Ridley Hall between the years 2010 and 2016. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexations and the University has correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA to refuse the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View The University of Cambridge
22 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application. Aylesbury Vale District Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exceptions for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)) and the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Aylesbury Vale District Council complied with regulation 5(1), breached regulation 5(2) by disclosing some information outside the statutory time limit, and correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
21 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Bank of England (the Bank) for a list of corporate credit card transactions by two members of senior Bank staff, along with copies of any receipts relating to the specific transactions. The Bank provided some details of the transactions but sought to withhold further information, including copies of the receipts, on the basis of the exemptions contained at the following sections of FOIA: 31(1)(a) (law enforcement), 38(1)(b) (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal data). In respect of the withheld information, the Commissioner is satisfied that the details of hotels used by the Bank’s staff, along with any other information that would identify the hotels in question, is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 38(1)(b) of FOIA, as are the home addresses of the Bank’s staff. The Commissioner also accepts that the assorted credit card details contained within the withheld information are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 31(1)(
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 38; FOI 40
View Bank of England
21 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from East Devon District Council (the council) in respect of predicted energy costs at Knowle in the context of the council’s office relocation project, and the documents used to reach those estimates. The council provided some information, but maintained that it did not hold the remainder. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, further information was located within the scope of the request and some of this was provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to comply fully with this request and in doing so has breached section 1, section 10 and section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View East Devon District Council
21 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Clerk’s handwritten notes from a specified meeting. Leyburn Town Council (the council) initially failed to deal with the request in accordance with the FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s involvement, the council complied with the request. The council therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA in not complying with the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to comply with section 10 of the FOIA. As the council has now complied with the request, the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ilkley Town Council
21 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Independent Police Complaints Scrutiny Panel set up by the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria (“the PCC”). The PCC disclosed a small amount of information in response to the request and said that it did not hold anything further. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the PCC has disclosed to the complainant all the information it holds which falls within the scope of the request and that it does not hold anything further. The Commissioner does not require the PCC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
21 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the training materials used by Merseyside Police in its Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent (“WRAP”) training sessions. Merseyside Police refused to disclose this information under the exemptions provided by sections 24(1) (national security), 31(1) (law enforcement) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Merseyside Police was entitled to rely on section 24(1) to refuse to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0095 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Merseyside Police
20 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has submitted two requests for recorded information to Hastings Borough Council. The information which the complainant seeks relates to the digging of six, one metre square test pits in Speckled Wood in Ore, Hastings. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hastings Borough Council is not entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR in respect of the complainant’s second request. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council has, on the balance of probabilities, provided the complainant with all of the recorded information it holds in respect of the complainant’s first request and the Council has therefore complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. In view of the Council’s failure to respond to the complainant’s second request, the Commissioner has decided that Hastings Borough Council has not complied with Regulation 5(1) in respect of that request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
20 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Drayton Manor High School (the “School”) information regarding staff pay progression policies in relation to equalities considerations. The Commissioner has determined that the School was correct to apply section 12 of the FOIA to the request. Therefore, she does not require the School to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
20 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Pittington Parish Council’s stage 2 complaints policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that Pittington Parish Council has breached sections 1(right of access to information) and 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Pittington Parish Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
20 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested evidence of a police procedure which would assure that a Taser weapon deployed by a constable of Dyfed Powys Police would not be used as an instrument of torture as defined in international law. Dyfed Powys Police refused the request in reliance on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Dyfed Powys Police has correctly relied on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Dyfed-Powys Police
20 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a particular retail unit based in South Kensington Station which is occupied by his company together with information on the potential redevelopment of the station. TfL disclosed some information about the retail unit but withheld other information under the exceptions provided by regulation 12(4)(d) – information still in the course of completion, regulation 12(5)(b) – adverse effect to the course of justice, regulation 12(5)(e) – commercial confidentiality, regulation 13 – third party personal data. It refused to consider the request for information on the potential redevelopment of the station under regulation 12(4)(b) on the basis that, due to the volume of information involved, it was manifestly unreasonable. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation TfL extended its application of regulation 12(4)(b) to the entire request both on the grounds it was burdensome and that it now considered the request to be vexatious. Howeve
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9; FOI 12; FOI 14; FOI 40; FOI 42; FOI 43
View Transport for London
20 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the DoH for the diary of the Secretary of State for Health. The DoH refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH has correctly applied section 14(1) FOIA to the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department of Health and Social Care
20 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to continuing care funding assessments. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) has breached section 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide a response 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 10
20 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants have made two requests to Malvern Hills District Council for varied information relating to Council policies and a specific planning matter. The Council refused to comply with the requests under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1). However by failing to provide a refusal notice within the time for compliance the Council has breached section 17(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0060 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Malvern Hills District Council
20 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Bromsgrove District Council about a planning enforcement matter. The Council confirmed that some information was not held, and confirmed that some was held but was subject to the exception provided by regulation 12(5)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The complainant contested both aspects of the Council’s response. The Commissioner’s decision is that Council does not hold the information sought by part 1 of the request, and has correctly withheld the information sought by parts 2 to 6 under regulation 12(5)(b). However the Council breached the requirement of regulation 5(2) by failing to respond within the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Bromsgrove District Council
20 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Medway Council about a specific planning reference. The Council disclosed information in response. The complainant contested that further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all relevant held information. However, by providing an internal review outside of 40 working days, the Council failed to comply with the requirement of regulation 11(4) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1)
View Medway Council
16 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to five men arrested in the Winchelsea beach area, on suspicion of entering the UK illegally. 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 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
16 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about citizenship refusals from the Home Office (the “HO”). The HO refused to provide the information citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA on the basis that individuals could be identified. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HO has incorrectly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA as the withheld information is sufficiently anonymised to take it out of the definition of personal data. The Commissioner therefore requires the HO to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
16 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two information requests in relation to an area called Ramshill. East Hampshire District Council (the council) provided its response to both requests. The complainant was not satisfied with the time it took the council to provide its response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in relation to both requests as the responses were provided outside the required 20 working day timeframe following receipt of the requests. As the council has provided its responses to the requests, the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View East Hampshire District Council
16 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on specific radar replay recordings in respect of military flights in the proximity of his property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Defence has appropriately refused the request in reliance of the FOIA exemptions at section 43(2) - Commercial interests and section 40(2) - Personal data. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0069 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
View Ministry of Defence
16 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to The National Archives (TNA) for a full and uncensored version of a TNA file. TNA took 108 working days to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA breached section 17(3) in its handling of the request but she requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View The National Archives
16 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made four separate requests for information on different dates. Birmingham City Council (the council) has not responded to any of the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in all four requests. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide a response to each of the four requests outlined in this decision notice in accordance with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Birmingham City Council
15 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a two part request for information about The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008. The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) asked for clarification as to the meaning of the first part of the request and refused the second part of the request on the grounds that compliance with it would exceed the appropriate limit, under section 12 of the FOIA. The complainant provided the requested clarification with regard to the first part of the request and, in respect of the second part of the request, asked for advice and assistance as to how he might submit a refined request. At the date of this decision notice the MoJ had neither responded to the clarified part of the request nor provided the requested advice and assistance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request with 20 working days. By failing to provide advice and assistance with regard to
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
15 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the "Pan-European Freight Security and The Migrant Crisis" conference held in London on 27-28 April 2016. By the date of this notice the Home Office had not responded substantively to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, although it has complied with section 17(1) in stating which exemption is to be relied upon, by failing to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time period the Home Office has breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also found breaches of sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response to the complainant’s request, either disclosing the requested information or issuing a refusal notice which includes the outcome of the public interest considerations.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View Home Office
14 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of all emails received or sent by a named individual making reference to Ideoba. The Welsh Assembly Government provided some information but refused most of the information relevant to the request by virtue of sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c). It also withheld a small amount of information by virtue of section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Assembly Government has correctly withheld the information in reliance on sections 36(2)(i) and (ii) and section 40(2) of the FOIA. However, the Welsh Government incorrectly relied on section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the requested information withheld solely by virtue of section 36(2)(c). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0077 disposed of by consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Welsh Government
14 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all reports made prior to November 27 2015 to the Corporate Management team of Durham County Council relating to proposals to change the contracts of classroom assistants in County Durham. The Commissioner’s decision is that Durham County Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 36(2)(b)(i) where disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice. She does not require the public authority to take the any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0073 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Durham County Council
14 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Rotherham Metropolitan District Council (the Council)’s Submission Sites & Policies Consultation Statement. The complainant disputed the Council’s position with respect to some of the requested information namely information relating to meetings involving community/resident groups. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not hold this information and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0075 refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
14 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to whether councillors have received any instructions or advice about communicating with him specifically. The Commissioner’s decision is that Durham County Council has correctly applied section 40(1) to the request. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Durham County Council
14 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the training materials used by Cheshire Constabulary in its Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent (“WRAP”) training sessions. Cheshire Constabulary refused to disclose this information under the exemptions provided by sections 24(1) (national security), 31(1) (law enforcement) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 24(1) to refuse to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0097 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Cheshire Constabulary
14 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the training materials used by Lancashire Constabulary in its Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent (“WRAP”) training sessions. Lancashire Constabulary refused to disclose this information under the exemptions provided by sections 24(1) (national security), 31(1) (law enforcement) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 24(1) to refuse to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0094 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Lancashire Constabulary
14 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council)’s 'Final Sites and Policies' document. The Council cited section 21 of the FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means). It also provided the complainant with advice and assistance, citing section 16 of the FOIA. The complainant disputed that the Council had provided the requested information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council confirmed that, contrary to its original responses, it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner has investigated whether the Council held information within the scope of the request. Her decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold the requested information. However, by failing to inform the complainant that it did not hold information of the description specified in his request, the Council breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be t
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
14 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the training materials used by Greater Manchester Police (“GMP”) in its Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent (“WRAP”) training sessions. GMP refused to disclose this information under the exemptions provided by sections 24(1) (national security), 31(1) (law enforcement) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP was entitled to rely on section 24(1) to refuse to disclose the requested information. However, she found procedural breaches relating to the time GMP took to deal with the request and the internal review. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0096 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 24
View Greater Manchester Police
14 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the training materials used by Cumbria Constabulary in its Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent (“WRAP”) training sessions. Cumbria Constabulary refused to disclose this information under the exemptions provided by sections 24(1) (national security), 31(1) (law enforcement) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cumbria Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 24(1) to refuse to disclose the requested information. However, she found procedural breaches relating to the time Cumbria Constabulary took to deal with the request and the internal review. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0098 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 24
View Cumbria Constabulary
13 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a personal court case from the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire (the “PCC”). The PCC would neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information by virtue of section 40(5)(a)(personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was correct to do so. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0076 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
13 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made four requests for information relating to licensing for the sale and possession of captive bred birds. NE refused the requests under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that NE has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to the requests. The Commissioner does not require NE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Natural England
13 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two requests for information to Cromer Town Council. In the first request the complainant seeks information relating to a legal dispute which the Council had been engaged in. The second request concerns information which relates to a Police Information Notice issued to a third party following a complaint made to the Police by the Town Clerk. The Council has refused to comply with both requests in reliance on section 14(1) of the FOIA on the grounds that they are vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cromer Town Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
13 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a request recorded information from Cromer Town Council. The ambit of the complainant’s request is particularly wide since it relates to litigation between the Council and Hoyl Group Limited concerning the right of access to the basement flat at North Lodge. The Council refused the complainant’s request in reliance on section 14(1) on the grounds that the request is vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cromer Town Council has properly applied section 14(1) to the complainant’s request. She finds that the complainant’s request for information is vexatious and consequently the Council is not obliged to comply with the provisions of section 1 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
13 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of a contract between Ceredigion County Council (‘the Council’) and PricewaterhouseCoopers (‘PwC’). The Council provided some information but withheld details of the payment arrangements associated with the contract under section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 43(2) to the withheld information. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Ceredigion County Council