28 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a complete and up-to-date list of all business (non-residential) property rates data held by Cornwall Council. The council applied section 31(1)(a) to the information stating that it would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime to disclose the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to withhold the information under Regulation 31(1)(a). The Commissioner has also considered the application of section 40(2) to the information (personal data). Her view is that this will apply to information held relating to sole traders and partnerships. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: To disclose the requested information to the complainant other than information relating to sole traders or partnerships.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View Cornwall 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
28 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on business (non-residential) property rates data from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council. The council applied section 31(1)(a) to the information (prevention and detection of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 31(1)(a) however the public interest in the information being disclosed outweighs that in the exemption being maintained. The Commissioner has also considered the application of section 40(2) (personal data) to the information relating to sole traders and partnerships. Her view is that this exemption will apply to such information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: To disclose the information relating to the occupation of premises to the complainant other than information relating to sole traders or partnerships.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
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
28 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information it held about the death of a British citizen, Bilal Ahmed, in Kashmir in 2000. The FCO provided the complainant with the documents it held which fell within the scope of his request but redacted certain parts on the basis of the exemptions contained at section 23(1) (security bodies), section 27(1)(a) (international relations), section 40(2) (personal data) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO has correctly applied sections 23(1), 40(2) and 43(2). However, the Commissioner has also concluded that section 27(1)(a) is not engaged.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 27; FOI 40; FOI 43
28 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking a copy of a file dating from 1974 concerning Diego Garcia. He also requested a list of the file’s contents. The Cabinet Office sought to withhold the file, and a list of its contents, on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a), 27(1)(c), 27(1)(d) and 27(2) (international relations), 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(a) and 26(1)(b) (defence) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Cabinet Office provided the complainant with a small amount of information contained in the file which it was established was in effect already in the public domain. The Commissioner has concluded that the remaining information contained in the file is exempt from disclosure of the basis of sections 27(1)(a), 27(1)(c) and 27(1)(d). The Commissioner is also satisfied that a list of the file’s contents is also exempt from disclosure on the basis of the same exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
28 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information relating to the Service Justice system. The MOD originally refused to comply with the requests on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA. The complainant brought an appeal in respect of one of these requests and the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) found in his favour. As a result, the MOD subsequently complied with both requests and provided information albeit that some information was withheld on the basis of sections 40(2) (personal data) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The complainant alleged that the MOD is likely to withhold further information beyond that previously located and disputed the MOD’s reliance on section 42(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the MOD does not hold any further information. She has also concluded that the MOD is entitled to rely on section 42(1) in the manner in which it did. This decision notic
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 42
View Ministry of Defence
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
27 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the announcement of Stanford West as the preferred location for Operation Stack lorry park. The Department for Transport (DfT) refused to comply with the request on the basis that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit in costs set by section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT correctly applied section 12(1) and found that there is no breach of section 16(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Transport
27 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council about reports of water leaks and window problems in a housing estate managed by the Council. The Council refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The complainant subsequently contested the Council’s refusal. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the exclusion provided by section 12(1), but has failed to provide advice and assistance under section 16(1). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with relevant advice and assistance as to what information can be provided within the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Brighton and Hove City Council
23 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for details of an objection to an application for the dissolution of a company. The public authority withheld this information on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 41(1) and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 41(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0035 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Companies House
23 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the “Policy, Law and Decision Making Guidance” as used by the public authority in the assessment of child maintenance cases. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) relied on section 22 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP incorrectly applied section 22 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the DWP to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Department for Work and Pensions
23 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea its Cabinet’s ‘Confidential/Exempt Part B Appendix’ dated 19 November 2015. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea withheld this information in its entirety under Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR in respect of the information contained in the table under paragraph 57 of this Decision Notice but not the remaining information in the ‘Confidential/Exempt Part B Appendix’ dated 19 November 2015.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s Cabinet’s ‘Confidential/Exempt Part B Appendix’ dated 19 November 2015 with the information in paragraph 57 of this Decision Notice redacted. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0055 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
22 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on CCTV and surveillance techniques employed at Edinburgh Waverley train station. Network Rail provided some information as requested but refused to confirm the number of CCTV cameras at the station on the basis of sections 24(1), 31(1)(a) and (b) and 38(1) as well as refusing to confirm or deny if information was held for three other parts of the request by virtue of the exclusions at section 24(2), 31(3) and 38(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Network Rail has correctly applied section 24(1) to part 1 of the request and section 24(2) to parts 5, 6a and 7 and the public interest in both cases favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Network Rail
22 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”) broadly relating to the ownership of a boundary structure at a specific address. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold information falling within the scope of request 2. However the Commissioner has determined that the Council has incorrectly applied regulation 6 of the EIR to request 1. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the complainant confirming which does not rely on regulation 6(1)(b). 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: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
22 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Charity Commission on the split of the Global Warming Policy Foundation into charitable and trading arms. The Charity Commission disclosed some information but relied on the exemptions at section 31, 40, 41 and 42 of the FOIA to withhold other information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31 can only be relied on in respect of some of the information to which it has been applied; similarly sections 41 and 40(2) can only be relied on in respect of some of the information to which they have been applied. Section 42 has been correctly applied to withhold all information it has been applied to. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information which is not protected by any of the exemptions cited as identified in the confidential annex which has been provided to the Charity Commission.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 42
View The Charity Commission
22 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (“Defra”) relating to voluntary exit payments of Defra senior civil servants. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires Defra to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
22 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on Wycombe District Council’s Prevent programme. The Council answered some of the questions but considered that information requested in some parts of the request was exempt from disclosure under sections 24 and 31 of the FOIA. It later amended its position and stated information was not held for most of the parts of the request but maintained that the information held for part 7 of the request was exempt under section 41 and 31. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA by stating that information is not held for the majority of the request but considers that the Council has not complied with section 1(1) in relation to part 10. She also finds the section 24(1) exemption is engaged in relation to the information that is held for part 7 and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the Council to confirm what information is held for part 10 of the request and p
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 24
21 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Trust for details of its board members’ expenses. The Trust failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
21 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a Gas Maintenance and Service Contract. Central Bedfordshire Council withheld the information under the exemptions for information provided in confidence (section 41) and prejudice to commercial interests (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Central Bedfordshire Council has failed to demonstrate that section 41 and section 43(2) are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
View Central Bedfordshire Council
21 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Hartlepool Borough Council (the council) regarding the transfer of ownership of Teesside International Airport (TIA) in 2003 and related payments made to Peel Group, along with any irrevocable commitments entered into by Peel Group and any third party commitments by One North East. The council confirmed that it did not hold all the requested information as it was not the lead authority on the matter of TIA. With regard to the information is does hold, it provided some and withheld the remainder under section 43 of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council also sought to rely on section 36(2)(c) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to adequately demonstrate that section 43(2), section 36(2)(c), or section 40(2) are engaged. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0057 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Hartlepool Council
20 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (the “Council”) information regarding ABA (Applied Behaviour Analysis) programmes. The Commissioner has determined that the Council was correct to apply section 12 of the FOIA to the request. Therefore, she does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
20 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Wigan Borough Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) about the data controller for Ashton, Leigh and Wigan Primary Care Trust during 2009. The CCG’s position is that it does not hold this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG has complied with its obligations under section 1(1)(a) and section 1(1)(b) of the FOIA. She considers that the CCG confirmed to the complainant that it does not hold the information he has requested, and she is satisfied that the information is not held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0049 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wigan Borough Clinical Commissioning Group
20 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a series of requests to the London Borough of Bexley (the “Council”) for information relating to the role of Head of Legal Services and Monitoring Officer for the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) and section 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse these requests. Therefore, she does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 40
View Bexley Council
20 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an unredacted letter which was read out at a meeting of Hickling Parish Council. Hickling Parish Council has disclosed this letter to the complainant together with a second related letter. Notwithstanding this disclosure, the Council determined that the names, addresses and signatures of the eight signatories should be withheld in reliance on section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hickling Parish Council has correctly applied section 40(2) to the information it has withheld from the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
20 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from University of London (“UoL”) relating to its status as an awarding body for the Doctorate in Clinical Psychology (DClinPsy) at King’s College London, Royal Holloway University of London, and University College London. The Commissioner’s decision is that UoL has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the request. Therefore, the Commissioner requires UoL to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View London
20 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the conditions associated with a particular planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Carmarthenshire County Council (‘the Council’) breached regulation 14 of the EIR in failing to response to the request within the required timescale. However, as a response has now been provided the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14
View Carmarthenshire County Council
20 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to plans to develop the Cliftonville Lido site. Kent County Council initially handled the request under the FOIA, disclosing some information and withholding other information under the exemption for information provided in confidence (section 41). During the Commissioner’s investigation the council reconsidered the request under the EIR, disclosing further information and applying the exceptions for intellectual property rights (regulation 12(5)(c)) and commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)) to withhold other information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent County Council wrongly handled the request under the EIR and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14 and failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(c) and regulation 12(5)(e) are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(c); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5(1)
View Kent County Council
20 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the correspondence in which the Government Legal Department (GLD) was asked to provide representation in court. The GLD refused to comply with the request and cited section 42(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 42(1) is engaged in this case. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0043 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Government Legal Department
20 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the reasoning behind a decision not to investigate a case. The Pensions Ombudsman Service (POS) confirmed that they did not hold any further information. The complainant considered that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the POS does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require the POS to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0048 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The Pensions Ombudsman
20 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information pertaining to Twickenham Riverside redevelopment scheme. The public authority provided the complainant with the information held within the scope of his request. The complainant submitted that the public authority holds additional information. The Commissioner has concluded that on the balance of probabilities, the public authority does not hold additional information within the scope of the complainant’s request. She has also found that the request ought to have been handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
20 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
On 2 March 2016 the complainant requested information from Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) about complaints that it has received. On 22 November 2016, PHSO confirmed it holds related information and released this to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that PHSO: has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. PHSO has now provided the complainant with a response and the Commissioner therefore does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
20 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the numbers of particular medical products purchased by individual NHS trusts in the financial year 2015 – 2016. The NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) provided some higher level information but refused to provide the details requested under section 43(2) – commercial prejudice. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSBSA is entitled to rely on section 43(2) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View NHS Business Services Authority
16 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various reports relating to Coety Primary School. Bridgend County Borough Council (‘the Council’) withheld the information under section 43(2) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council withdrew reliance on section 43 of the FOIA and disclosed the information, subject to a small amount of personal data being redacted under section 40(2). In failing to comply with section 1 within the statutory timescale the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bridgend County Borough Council
16 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a neighbourhood plan. Ledbury Town Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the FOIA exemptions for information accessible by other means (section 21) and prejudice to commercial interests (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Ledbury Town Council has failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Ilkley Town Council
16 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about monies paid to two individuals, a barrister and a Learning Support Assistant. South Tyneside Council (the “Council”) contravened a number of its FOIA procedural obligations in handling the complainant’s FOIA requests but eventually refused to provide the information citing section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data) and section 43 (prejudice to commercial interests).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40 as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. However, it contravened provisions of section 1, section 10 and section 17 when handling the requests. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View South Tyneside Council
16 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Hackney in relation to its decision to apply for planning permission to build a temporary school at Audrey Street Park Depot E2 8QH. The London Borough of Hackney withheld the information under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Hackney has correctly applied Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0047 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Hackney
16 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to the liquidation of Kids Company. The Cabinet Office refused to provide what it held within the scope of the request citing section 43 (commercial interests) and section 41 (confidential information). At internal review, it introduced also reliance on section 31 (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) as its basis for withholding the requested information. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0045 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Cabinet Office
16 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of Cardiff Council’s reply to the consultation on the draft Welsh language standards. The Welsh Language Commissioner (‘the WLC’) refused the request under section 44 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the WLC has correctly applied section 44 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0046 dismissed.
Please note that both English and Welsh language versions of the decision notice are included in the PDF below.
Crynodeb: Gofynnodd yr achwynydd am gopi o ymateb Cyngor Caerdydd i’r ymgynghoriad ar y safonau Cymraeg drafft. Gwrthododd Comisiynydd y Gymraeg (‘CyG’) y cais o dan adran 44 o’r Ddeddf. Penderfyniad y Comisiynydd yw bod CyG wedi cymhwyso adran 44 o’r Ddeddf yn gywir. Nid yw’r Comisiynydd yn gofyn i unrhyw gamau gael eu cymryd. Apêl Tribiwnlys Gwybodaeth EA/2017/0046 wedi'i ddiswyddo.
Sylwch fod fersiwn Cymraeg a fersiwn Saesneg o’r hysbysiad penderfynu wedi’u
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Welsh Language Commissioner
16 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested listening figures for BBC Radio 4 Moneybox. 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 the BBC 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
16 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested complaints information including details of a specific concern he had. South Hams District Council (“SHDC”) provided some information but argued that the remainder was exempt under section 31(1)(g) and 31(2)(b) (Law enforcement exemptions). After internal review, SHDC upheld its position but during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it disclosed some of the withheld information but continued to withhold the remainder citing section 31(1)(g) and 31(2)(b) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that, as far as the remainder is concerned, SHDC is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds this information on the basis of section 40(5) and section 31(3). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View South Hams District Council
16 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Education Northern Ireland (DENI) relating to an inspection carried out of St John the Baptist Primary School, Finaghy, Belfast. DENI disclosed some of the requested information, however it refused to disclose the remainder (the withheld information) citing sections 33, 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DENI has correctly applied section 33 of the FOIA to the majority of the withheld information, however there is one part of the withheld information to which it has been incorrectly applied. The Commissioner has further decided that the redactions made by the DENI under section 40(2) of the FOIA in relation to some of the information it disclosed under part 6 of the request were appropriate, and therefore DENI correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to that part of the requested information. As the Commissioner considers that the majority of the withheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 33; FOI 40
View Department of Education (Northern Ireland)
16 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the ownership of land associated with a hedge. Exeter City Council disclosed information but the complainant disputed that all the relevant information had been provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that Exeter County Council has disclosed all the relevant information it holds and complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Exeter City Council
15 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a number of requests to the council during 2016 for information, some under the FOIA and some under the EIR. With the exception of one, the council failed to respond within 20 working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in respect of all but one of the requests contained in this decision notice, the council failed to comply with section 10(1) of the Act and regulation 5(2) of the EIR in that it did not provide the information to the complainant within 20 working days. As the council has now provided the complainant with the requested information the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 10
View Merton Council
15 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information connected to a specific planning application. The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (“the Council”) provided some information and withheld other information under the exceptions in regulation 12(5)(f) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly applied regulations 12(5)(f) and 13 to most of the information that it has withheld. She has also decided that it breached regulation 7(1) in extending the time to respond to the request and regulation 11(4) in taking more than 40 working days to complete the internal review.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13; EIR 7(1)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
14 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Through six requests, the complainant has requested information from Robin Lane Medical Centre (‘the Centre’) about its patients. The Centre says that some of the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the FOIA as it is already reasonably accessible to the complainant. The Centre refused to comply with the remainder of the requests under section 12 as to do so would exceed the appropriate time and cost limit. The Commissioner finds that the six requests can be aggregated for the purposes of applying section 12 and that section 12(1) applies to all the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Centre is not obliged to comply with them. The Commissioner finds, however, that the Centre did not provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligation under section 16. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure it complies with the legislation: Provide the complainant w
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Rocky Lane Medical Centre
14 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an agenda for a meeting of a Passenger Advisory Group. West Sussex County Council (‘the Council’) has confirmed it holds the information but says it holds it on behalf of Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee (GATCOM). The Council says that since GATCOM is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA, the Council cannot be said to hold the information under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0028 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Sussex County Council
14 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Through seven requests, the complainant has requested information from South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) about its relationship with an organisation called Auxilium. The Trust says it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust does not hold the requested information. However, she must find that the Trust did not fully comply with its obligation under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA because, at the time of its original response, it did not clearly indicate that it does not hold any information with respect to each of the seven requests. The Commissioner has found that the Trust also breached section 10(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
14 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between Ryedale District Council (“the council”) and several third parties, relating to fracking in the local area. The council initially responded that it did not hold any relevant information. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the council reviewed the matter and found a small amount of information which it disclosed to the complainant. It stated that it did not hold any further information which fell within the scope of the request. In failing to disclose at the time of the request information that it did hold, the council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner also decided that the council does hold further information which falls within the scope of the request, which it has not yet disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose to the complainant or cite a valid EIR exception under which it may be withheld, the email shown in a confidential annex to this decision notice
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
14 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Manchester (“the University”) for information about the number of teaching assistants employed by the School of Arts, Languages and Cultures over a period of four academic years. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA in the following way: it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days as set out in section 10 of the FOIA. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner requires the University to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The University of Manchester