13 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a personal court case from North Yorkshire Police (“NYP”). NYP 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View North Yorkshire Police
13 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked Brighton and Hove City Council for copies of the presentations from the six applicants for the development of Hove’s King Alfred Leisure Centre. The Council has confirmed that it does not hold copies of presentations but it does hold the two Outline Solutions and the two Final Tenders. The Council has refused to provide this information to the complainant in reliance on Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Brighton and Hove City Council has properly applied Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to the Outline Solutions and Final Tenders it holds.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
13 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the University of Wolverhampton a copy of the report that was presented to both the July 2015 Board of Governors meeting and the September 2015 Academic Board meeting. The University of Wolverhampton has disclosed parts of the report but redacted the rest under Sections 43(2) and 22 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University of Wolverhampton has not successfully applied Sections 43(2) and 22 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the redacted parts of the report that was presented to both the July 2015 Board of Governors meeting and the September 2015 Academic Board meeting. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0072 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 43
View The University of Wolverhampton
13 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants have requested information from the Whitby High School (“the School”) about the amount of money that the School spent on legal advice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has complied with section 1 of the FOIA and provided the complainants with all of the recorded information falling within the scope of the requests which it held. She has also decided that the School has complied with section 1 by informing the complainants that it did not hold recorded information where this was relevant to their requests. Accordingly, the Commissioner does not require the School to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
13 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details relating to a ‘liability order’ associated with non-payment of council tax. Preston City Council (the ‘Council’) provided the information it held relevant to the request. The complainant disputed that he had been given all the information requested. For part 1 of the request, the Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information does not exist because the complainant is mistaken as to the legislation which governs council tax proceedings. In respect of the remainder of the request, the Commissioner has decided that the Council should have instead relied on the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision in section 40(5)(a) of FOIA and it was not obliged to confirm whether or not it held the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Preston City Council
13 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about officers connected to an investigation being undertaken by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (the “IPCC”). Having disclosed most of the requested information, the IPCC refused to provide the ranks of the remaining two officers on the basis that this would identify them and thereby breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2)(personal information) is properly engaged in respect of one officer. However, in respect of the other officer, the Commissioner requires the IPCC to disclose the rank.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
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
9 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested historical information relating to the maternity pay and leave entitlement of a civil servant. By the date of this notice the Home Office had not responded to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days, the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the 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 as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
9 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on who provided advice to the parish council regarding a contract under negotiation with a croquet club. The council said that no information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities the council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
9 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to statistical data about court orders made in the Family Court together with information about domestic violence and child protection matters. 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 has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. She requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
9 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on empty houses within the council area. Amongst other information he requested the addresses of the properties and how long they have been empty. The council has applied section 31(1)(a) to the information. During the course of the investigation the council disclosed much of the information to the complainant however it withheld the addresses of the properties. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 31(1)(a) to the addresses of the properties and the public interest rests in the exception being maintained. The Commissioner has also decided that section 40(2) was applicable to withhold the information. The Commissioner has however decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) in that it did not respond to the complainant's first request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 10(1); EIR 31(1)(a); EIR 40(2)
View Hertsmere Borough Council
9 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to its removal from a contract to remove waste from two hospital sites, the appointed of an interim contractor and the appointed of that same contractor to a longer term contract following a formal procurement exercise. The Trust disclosed some information but withheld a limited amount under the exemption provided by section 43(2) – commercial prejudice. The complainant has not challenged the application of section 43 but did argue that additional information was held. Failure to identify all the information captured by a request would constitute a breach of section 1. Following further searches some additional information was located, some of which was released. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust’s searches have now identified all the information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
9 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint he made. NHS England provided the complainant with some information which fell within the scope of the request which amounted to his own personal data. This was provided under the Data Protection Act 1998. It refused to disclose the requested information under FOIA as it applied section 31(1)(g) and 36(2)(c) to all of the withheld information and section 41, 40(1) and 40(2) to parts of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England correctly applied section 36(2)(c) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View NHS England
9 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Data Protection Act and a data controller application. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) says it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICO does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Information Commissioner
9 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to payments for the supply of ballot papers. Cardiff Council refused the request, relying on the exemption for prejudice to commercial interests, section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cardiff Council failed to issue a valid refusal notice and breached section 17(1)(c) and failed to show that section 43(2) was engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 43
View Cardiff Council
9 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to a specific prosecution by Devon and Somerset Trading Standards. The Commissioner’s decision is that Devon County Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 30(1)(a) of the FOIA where information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained whether a person should be charged with an offence or whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0066 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Devon County Council
9 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.The complainant requested a copy of a report presented at a Board meeting. The position of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is that this information is exempt from release under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), and that the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that, at the time of the request, IPSA correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(i) to the withheld information and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0067 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
9 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the name of a person who made accusations about her and correspondence and communications about the complainant. The Council has failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner considers that the Council breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Warrington Council
8 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various categories of data relating to pay progression for eligible teachers from various schools in the Haringey area. The public authority (Woodside High School) in this case considered that to disclose the requested information would breach the ‘third party personal data’ (section 40(2)) exemption in FOIA. With the agreement of some of the other schools to which the request was directed though, it was considered appropriate to pool the data for these schools together in order to provide an aggregated response. The complainant, however, considers that the aggregated information does not satisfactorily answer her requests and has asked the Commissioner to consider the application of section 40(2) to the discrete set of data for the public authority. The Commissioner has decided that section 40(2) of FOIA is engaged and therefore does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
8 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various categories of data relating to pay progression for eligible teachers from various schools in the Haringey area. The public authority (Haringey Sixth Form College) in this case considered that to disclose the requested information would breach the ‘third party personal data’ (section 40(2)) exemption in FOIA. With the agreement of some of the other schools to which the request was directed though, it was considered appropriate to pool the data for these schools together in order to provide an aggregated response. The complainant, however, considers that the aggregated information does not satisfactorily answer her requests and has asked the Commissioner to consider the application of section 40(2) to the discrete set of data for the public authority. The Commissioner has decided that section 40(2) of FOIA is engaged and therefore does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View ESHER SIXTH FORM COLLEGE
8 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Rother District Council relating to a specific planning application. The request was refused by Rother District Council under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of EIR. The Commissioner has considered Rother District Council’s application of regulation 12(4)(b)of EIR in the context of its previous application of the same exception to a prior related request made by the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Rother District Council has applied regulation 12(4)(b) of EIR appropriately. The Commissioner does not require Rother District Council to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Rother District Council
8 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) about its spending of section 106 funds in relation to libraries over a period of seven years. The Council has provided information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has investigated whether the Council has handled the request in accordance with the FOIA: specifically, whether it has provided all of the information falling within the scope of the request which it holds to the complainant, in accordance with section1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has complied with its duty under section 1 of the FOIA. Accordingly, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Lambeth
8 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various categories of data relating to pay progression for eligible teachers from various schools in the Haringey area. The public authority (Hornsey School for Girls) in this case considered that to disclose the requested information would breach the ‘third party personal data’ (section 40(2)) exemption in FOIA. With the agreement of some of the other schools to which the request was directed though, it was considered appropriate to pool the data for these schools together in order to provide an aggregated response. The complainant, however, considers that the aggregated information does not satisfactorily answer her requests and has asked the Commissioner to consider the application of section 40(2) to the discrete set of data for the public authority. The Commissioner has decided that section 40(2) of FOIA is engaged and therefore does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View BOURNEMOUTH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS
8 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various categories of data relating to pay progression for eligible teachers from various schools in the Haringey area. The public authority (St James C of E Primary School) in this case considered that to disclose the requested information would breach the ‘third party personal data’ (section 40(2)) exemption in FOIA. With the agreement of some of the other schools to which the request was directed though, it was considered appropriate to pool the data for these schools together in order to provide an aggregated response. The complainant, however, considers that the aggregated information does not satisfactorily answer her requests and has asked the Commissioner to consider the application of section 40(2) to the discrete set of data for the public authority. The Commissioner has decided that section 40(2) of FOIA is engaged and therefore does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
8 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various categories of data relating to pay progression for eligible teachers from various schools in the Haringey area. The public authority (Highgate Primary School) in this case considered that to disclose the requested information would breach the ‘third party personal data’ (section 40(2)) exemption in FOIA. With the agreement of some of the other schools to which the request was directed though, it was considered appropriate to pool the data for these schools together in order to provide an aggregated response. The complainant, however, considers that the aggregated information does not satisfactorily answer her requests and has asked the Commissioner to consider the application of section 40(2) to the discrete set of data for the public authority. The Commissioner has decided that section 40(2) of FOIA is engaged and therefore does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View HARTWELL PRIMARY SCHOOL
8 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various categories of data relating to pay progression for eligible teachers from various schools in the Haringey area. The public authority (Alexandra Park School) in this case considered that to disclose the requested information would breach the ‘third party personal data’ (section 40(2)) exemption in FOIA. With the agreement of some of the other schools to which the request was directed though, it was considered appropriate to pool the data for these schools together in order to provide an aggregated response. The complainant, however, considers that the aggregated information does not satisfactorily answer her requests and has asked the Commissioner to consider the application of section 40(2) to the discrete set of data for the public authority. The Commissioner has decided that section 40(2) of FOIA is engaged and therefore does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
8 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various categories of data relating to pay progression for eligible teachers from various schools in the Haringey area. The public authority (Our Lady of Muswell RC Primary School) in this case considered that to disclose the requested information would breach the ‘third party personal data’ (section 40(2)) exemption in FOIA. With the agreement of some of the other schools to which the request was directed though, it was considered appropriate to pool the data for these schools together in order to provide an aggregated response. The complainant, however, considers that the aggregated information does not satisfactorily answer her requests and has asked the Commissioner to consider the application of section 40(2) to the discrete set of data for the public authority. The Commissioner has decided that section 40(2) of FOIA is engaged and therefore does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
7 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to flood defences between the Environment Agency (EA) and other authorities from 1 January 2015 onwards. The EA refused to disclose the requested information citing regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation some information was disclosed to the complainant. With regards to the remaining withheld information, the Commissioner is satisfied that regulation 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) of the EIR apply and that the public interest rests in maintaining these exceptions. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. The Commissioner has however recorded a breach of regulations 14(2) and 11 of the EIR in this case, as the EA failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days and failed to respond to the complainant’s request for an internal review within 40 working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 14(2)
View Environment Agency
7 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Bath and North East Somerset Council about the social care of her now deceased son, including any statement about their wishes for the disclosure of their social care records. The Council withheld the requested information under section 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The complainant subsequently contested the Council’s application of this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the exemption provided by section 41(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Bath and North East Somerset Council
7 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an electronic copy of a particular report held by Mendip District Council (the council). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10 (1) of the FOIA because it did not provide a response to the request within 20 working days. The council has now responded and the Commissioner does not require it to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
7 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to an application made for a particular property to be listed. The Welsh Government disclosed the documents requested, subject to some information being redacted under section 40(2). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Welsh Government disclosed some additional information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request falls to be considered under the EIR and the Welsh Government has correctly applied regulation 13 to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Welsh Government
6 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Humberside Police information about instances of refusal to act on alleged crimes, notably allegations of perjury, reported to them. He also asked for the cost to the police force of employing its solicitor. The Commissioner decided that Humberside Police had acted correctly in relying on the section 14(1) (vexatious requests) FOIA exemption to refuse the requests. The police did not respond within 20 working days of receiving four of the requests and in so doing breached the requirements of sections 10(1) (time for compliance) and 17(1) (refusal of request) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Humberside Police to take any further steps to comply with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0062 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Humberside Police
6 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) about sex offender treatment programmes. 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
6 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a list of names and associated details of individuals ‘presumed dead’ under the Presumption of Death Act 2013. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information on the basis that it is reasonably accessible by other means (section 21 of FOIA). The Commissioner finds that section 21 applies to all of the requested information. She does not require the Home Office to take any steps to comply with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Home Office
6 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics from the University of Manchester (the “University”) concerning the numbers of suicides in areas which fall under the Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (the “Trust”). The University provided some information but at internal review applied section 22A and section 41 of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 41 of the FOIA to this request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View The University of Manchester
2 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Hudson report and a Professional Standards Association report. The GDC refused to disclose the requested information under section 31(1)(g) with subsection (2)(d) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GDC has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(d) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View General Dental Council
2 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Home Office, the number of allegations of rape that have been reported by detainees of immigration removal centres. By the date of this notice, the Home Office has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office 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 it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
2 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Regent’s University London (“the University”) about its security department. The University did not initially respond. It subsequently explained that it had not received the request, and, in any event, it would not have been obliged to respond on the basis that it is not a public authority for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner has determined that the University is not subject to FOIA and therefore it does not have a duty to issue a response under the legislation. Accordingly she does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Regent's University London
2 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Hudson report and the Professional Standards Association report. The GDC provided the complainant with some of the information she requested, it applied section 12 FOIA to parts of the request and refused to provide some information under section 42 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GDC 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 appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with the GDC’s obligations under section 16 FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View General Dental Council
2 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (“the Council”) broadly relating to properties within the Borough. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to the information falling within the scope of request 1 which relates to freehold properties. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0056 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Kingston upon Thames Council
1 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the qualifications of two officers along with building reports. North East Lincolnshire Council (the council) provided some information but refused to provide the officer qualifications under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. However, after further consideration, it found that the two officers did not actually work for the council, but were employed by a third party sub-contractor. It subsequently amended its refusal to this part of its response to instead ‘information not held’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested qualifications. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0053 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View North East Lincolnshire Council
1 Mar 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the ban on Khat. 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. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a response to the request under the FPIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice. The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
1 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to dormant National Savings and Investment (NS&I) products. NS&I refused the request under section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), as it considered that disclosure of the information was barred by other statutory instruments. The Commissioner’s decision is that NS&I is entitled to refuse the request under section 44(1)(a) of the Act. However, NS&I did breach section 17(1) of the Act as it did not provide a refusal of the complainant’s request within the statutory timeframe. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 44
1 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the review of a complaint he had submitted to the General Medical Council (GMC). The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC was correct to neither confirm nor deny that the information was held under section 40(5)(b)(i) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC
1 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about website visits to the BBC. The BBC provided some information but refused to comply fully with the request because it says to do so would exceed the appropriate limit, under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA and found that there is no breach of section 16(1). The Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View BBC
1 Mar 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested both the draft and final minutes of the last two CPS meetings. The CPS provided a link to one set of final minutes and explained that the second set was in the process of being published. It also withheld two sets of draft minutes, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) (free and frank provision of advice) and (ii) (free and frank exchange of views for deliberation) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service has applied section 36(2)(b) (i) and (ii) of the FOIA appropriately to the draft minutes. However, the Commissioner considers that the Crown Prosecution Service has breached section 22 (intention to publish) of FOIA with regard to the second set of final minutes. The Commissioner also considers that the Crown Prosecution Service has breached section 21(information accessible by other means) and sections 17(1) (request for information) and 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Crown Prosecuti
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 22; FOI 36
View Crown Prosecution Service
1 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to a meeting for Cedars Academy Signatories to the Memorandum of Association. The council provided some information but the complainant considered that further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided all the information it holds within the scope of the case. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Milton Keynes Council
1 Mar 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of the full planning file, and in particular a copy of any communication between LDNPA and Cumbria Highways, in respect of a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is for environmental information and therefore the EIR is the correct information access regime to apply. LDNPA provided some of the requested information, however advised the complainant that in respect of communications with Cumbia Highways it did not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, LDNPA does not hold any communications with Cumbria Highways in relation to this planning application and so regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applies. The Commissioner does not require LDNPA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(1)
View Lake District National Park Authority
28 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested emails which mention her in relation to planning matters, emails which mention her which may have been written from or to specific councillors, and emails relating to the clearance of trees under the power cables on land south west of Nipsells Chase. The Commissioner’s decision is that Maldon District Council has incorrectly applied the exemptions at sections 36(2)(b)(i) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice), 36(2)(b)(ii) (inhibition to the free and frank exchange of views), and 36(2)(c) (prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that the council has correctly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA and regulation 13(1) of the EIR. She has also decided that Maldon District Council has incorrectly applied that exemption where disclosure would prejudice commercial interests at section 43(2) of the FOIA and the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR where dis
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13(1); FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Maldon District Council
28 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information transferred to the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), part of the Department for Communities. At the time of issuing this decision notice PRONI had not provided the complainant with a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time for compliance. Therefore the Commissioner finds that the public authority has failed to comply with section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10