13 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the location of all wastewater treatment works (WTW’s) in Southern Water’s area, including addresses and grid references. Southern Water provided a list of names of WTW’s and their postal towns but withheld the more specific location information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(a). Later in the investigation, Southern Water also sought to apply regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the regulation 12(5)(a) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. No steps are required of Southern Water.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Southern Water
13 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Burnley Borough Council relating to the compulsory purchase of his former home and the disparity in the amount of money he received in comparison with other property owners. The Commissioner’s decision is that Burnley Borough Council has complied with its duty under section 1 of the FOIA to provide the complainant with recorded information which it holds and which is relevant to his requests for information. She has also decided that the Council has complied with section 1 by informing the complainant that it does not hold recorded information where this is relevant to his requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Burnley Borough Council
10 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Rosetta space craft from the UK Space Agency. The Commissioner’s decision is that the UK Space Agency has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it has not responded to the complainant’s request. 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 UK Space Agency
9 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about whether or not discussions took place between the Bank of England (The Bank) and Lloyds Banking Group (LBG). In refusing the requests the Bank relied on section 12 - costs of compliance exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner's decision is that the Bank was entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse the requests but that it breached section 16 in failing to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. She does not require the Bank to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Bank of England
9 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of ratified accounts regarding section 106 agreements which the council has agreed. The council said that it does no hold relevant information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities the council was correct to say that it does not old information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Hastings Borough Council
9 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the late Lord Mountbatten (1900-1979) from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS disclosed some information but refused to disclose the remainder citing various sections of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation this position was revised. The MPS advised that it was unable to locate one file and therefore did not hold it. In respect of the remaining information it advised that it found the request to be vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on balance of probabilities, the missing file is no longer held. She also finds that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 14(1). No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0037 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14
View Metropolitan Police Service
9 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence received by the Crown Prosecution Service (the “CPS”) relating to a specific case. The CPS initially refused to provide this, citing sections 31(1)(c) (law enforcement) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation this was revised to 30(1)(c) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30(1)(c) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Crown Prosecution Service
8 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested the two spreadsheets comprising the Streamlined Pollution Climate Mapping (PCM) model from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs withheld the requested information in its entirety under Regulations 12(5)(c) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs has not correctly applied Regulations 12(5)(c) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner also finds that the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs has breached Regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to respond to the complainant’s representations for a review within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information withheld under Regulation 12(5)(c) and 12(5)(e). This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(c); EIR 12(5)(e)
8 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Rotherham Metropolitan District Council (RMBC)’s consultation process in relation to its borough plan. RMBC denied holding relevant information. The complainant disputed RMBC’s position with respect to some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that RMBC did not hold information within those parts of the request 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 FS50657166 dismissed
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
8 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Surrey County Council (the Council) relating to the removal of a street sign. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold the requested information. Also, the Council breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by not responding to the request within 20 working days. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0042 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Surrey County Council
8 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (“DfE”) for information about the performance of Regional Schools Commissioners against their Key Performance Indicators. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE 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 DfE to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Education
8 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) implemented in the borough on 9 April 2015. She also requested information relating to an amendment made to the PSPO on 5 June 2015. The council refused to disclose the requested information citing regulations 12(4)(e) and 13 of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation some information was disclosed to the complainant. But the council confirmed that it wished to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) and 13 of the EIR for the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner is satisfied that regulations 12(4)(e) and 13 of the EIR apply in this case. She has however found the council in breach of regulations 5(2) and 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Hackney
8 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to any discussions or meetings that took place from January 2014 onwards relating to the Shale Gas Rural Economy Impacts paper. To date DEFRA has not responded to this request. The Commissioner therefore finds DEFRA in breach of section 10 of the FOIA and requires it to issue a full response to the complainant in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
8 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to Byelaws of footpaths in the Mole Valley District Area. Mole Valley District Council (the council) provided some information to the complainant, however he did not consider that this information satisfied his request. The council determined that to locate and provide any further information would be manifestly unreasonable and so refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is able to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and therefore does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Mole Valley District Council
6 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Wandsworth Council (“the Council”) information about credit balances on its business rate accounts. The Council withheld the information under section 31(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 31(1)(a) to the withheld information and so does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View London Borough of Wandsworth
6 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a five-part request for information from Oxford City Council (the ‘Council’) about a draft Waterways Public Space Protection Order (‘PSPO’) .The Council provided the information in relation to part 5 of the request but refused to provide the remainder by virtue of section 21 of FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means). Following an internal review the Council maintained its position but concluded that the request should instead have been handled in accordance with the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council partly revised its position and said that no information is held in relation to parts 3 and 4 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information constitutes environmental information and therefore falls under the EIR. She has concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided all the information it holds in accordance with regulation 5(1) of the EIR for parts 1 and 2, this being
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Oxford City Council
6 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Mr Julian Assange. The Crown Prosecution Service applied sections 40(2) (Personal information), 27(1) and (2) (International relations), 30(1)(c) (Investigations and proceedings) of the FOIA to some of the information. It also neither confirmed nor denied holding some information by virtue of section 27(4)(a) (International relations) and applied section 14 (Vexatious request) of the FOIA to the remainder. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the CPS also confirmed that it was applying section 21 (information reasonably accessible by other means) of the FOIA to some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service has applied sections 27(1) and (2), 27(4), 21 and 14 of the FOIA, appropriately. However the Commissioner considers that the CPS has breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Crown Prosecution Service to any steps as a result of this decision. Thi
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14; FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 27
View Crown Prosecution Service
2 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a contract between East Cheshire NHS Trust and Parking Eye. The Trust provided the complainant with some of the information requested, confirmed that some was not held and refused to provide some information under section 40(2), 41 and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 40(2), 41 and 43(2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43
View East Cheshire NHS Trust
2 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of the current directors and an up to date summary of the accounts of a particular company as well as all correspondence between the FCA and this particular company from 2014. The FCA confirmed that the list of current directors and a summary of the accounts was exempt from disclosure under section 21(1) FOIA as this information was already reasonably accessible to the complainant. It confirmed that the remaining requested information was not held under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the FCA was correct to apply section 21(1) FOIA in this case that that it was correct to confirm that it does not hold any further information under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View Financial Conduct Authority
2 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an Independent Management Review (“IMR”) of Derby City Council’s Children’s Social Care Department. The IMR which the complainant seeks was carried out for the purpose of a Serious Case Review into the death of a child referred to as DD12. Derby City Council has withheld the requested information in reliance on section 36(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that Derby City Council has properly applied section 36(2) and it is therefore entitled to withhold the requested IMR.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Derby City Council
2 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complaints, assessments, investigations and individuals. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) says it is not obliged to comply with the requests under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that PHSO is not obliged to comply with the requests under section 12(1). The Commissioner is satisfied that PHSO met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0020 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
2 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In two separate requests to Transport for London (TfL), the complainant has requested information concerning access to particular of TfL’s sites. At the date of this notice, TfL has not responded to the two requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it has not responded to the complainant’s requests within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. TfL must provide the complainant with a response to his request of 21 October 2016 and his request of 24 October 2016 in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Transport for London
2 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the salary of a particular individual. The Trust has failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner considers that the Trust 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 Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
2 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a two part request, the complainant has requested information about complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). FOS says that section 12(2) of the FOIA applies to part 1 of the request as the cost of confirming whether it holds the requested information would exceed the appropriate limit. FOS released information in response to part 2 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that FOS has correctly applied section 12(2) to part 1 of the request. The Commissioner also considers that FOS has complied with its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0034 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
2 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Spelthorne Borough Council incorrectly relied on FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires the Council to confirm whether it holds the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Spelthorne Borough Council
2 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Bushbury Crematorium. The Council refused to provide the requested information under section 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 43(2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Wolverhampton City Council
2 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In two separate requests to Transport for London (TfL), the complainant has requested information concerning access to particular of TfL’s sites. At the date of this notice, TfL has not responded to the two requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it has not responded to the complainant’s requests within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. TfL must provide the complainant with a response to his request of 21 October 2016 and his request of 24 October 2016 in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Transport for London
1 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Home Office 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
1 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Pittington Parish Council meetings. After disclosing information to the complainant Pittington Parish Council explained that it did not hold any further information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Pittington Parish Council is correct to state that it does not hold any further information. The Commissioner therefore does not consider that Pittington Parish Council has breached section 1 of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require Pittington Parish Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
1 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Defence on the Gurkha Offer to Transfer (GOTT). He also requested a copy of a letter the Ministry of Defence (MOD) intended to send to the complainant, which did not reach the complainant due to an error by the MOD. The MOD provided three letters in response to the request based on its interpretation of the scope of the request. The complainant informed the MOD that this interpretation wasn’t correct, and that the scope was much wider. The MOD refused the request under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it considered the request to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to refuse the request under section 14(1) of the Act. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Defence
1 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the reports made by the managers of Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre about the conditions under which certain detainees were held for the month of March 2014. The Home Office provided extracts giving some information from the relevant reports but declined to provide the complete reports in full. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has applied the section 31(1) FOIA (law enforcement) exemption correctly. In the light of her findings in relation to section 31 FOIA, the Commissioner did not proceed to consider application by the Home Office of the section 40(2) FOIA (personal information) exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
1 Feb 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made three requests for information to the Ministry of Justice in which he requested information about the conduct of court proceedings by members of the judiciary. The Ministry of Justice relied upon the section 14(1) exemption of FOIA to refuse the requests. The Commissioner decided that the Ministry of Justice had applied the section 14(1) FOIA exemption correctly. She therefore does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any steps to comply with the legislation. However she also found that the Ministry of Justice had delayed its initial response to one of the requests (request 2 - FS50646503) for too long and, in so doing, had breached section 10(1) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Ministry of Justice
1 Feb 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to staff and inmate numbers at HMP Northumberland. The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to this request within the statutory timescale the MoJ breached section 10(1) of the FOIA (time for compliance). As a substantive response has been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
1 Feb 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the identity of the Deputy Chairman of a named Magistrates’ Court Advisory Committee and who was said to have dealt with his complaint. The Ministry of Justice relied upon the section 14(1) exemption of FOIA in refusing the request. The Commissioner decided that the Ministry of Justice had applied the section 14(1) FOIA exemption correctly. She therefore does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Justice
31 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the City of London Corporation (“the CoL”) for information about employees of the CoL with responsibility for the state of repair of his place of residence, including their contact details. The complainant also sought information about jobs being carried out at the location by a named contractor. The CoL refused all of the requests on the basis that they were vexatious, in accordance with section 14(1) of FOIA, and stated that it would not respond to future requests on related matters. The complainant then made a further request for the name of another officer at the CoL. The CoL did not respond to this. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CoL acted appropriately by refusing to respond to the request under section 14(1) FOIA, and by not responding to the further request in accordance with section 17(6) FOIA. She therefore does not require the CoL to take any further action. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0016 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View City of London Corporation
31 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the due diligence process followed by the former Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) prior to the Government’s sale of the remaining mortgage style student loans in November 2013. At the time of the request BIS withheld the requested information in its entirety under section 35(1)(a)(formulation or development of government policy) and section 43(2)(prejudice to commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, UK Government Investments provided the complainant with some of the previously withheld information but maintained that four of the five documents within scope of the request were exempt from disclosure under section 35(1)(a), section 43(2) and section 40(2) and that some of the information redacted from the fifth (disclosed) document was exempt from disclosure under section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that UK Government Investments we
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 43
View UK Government Investments
31 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Isle of Anglesey County Council (‘the Council’) relating to council tax liability for a property he owns. The Council provided the information requested and also responded to other points the complainant made (which were not information requests). In its internal review the Council acknowledged that it should have applied section 40(1) to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA in relation to one part of the request and that it correctly applied section 40(1) to the other part of the request. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Isle of Anglesey County Council
31 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an agreement between the Welsh Government and Bangor University regarding the development and maintenance of the Termiadur Addysg, a Welsh language terminology resource. He also requested a complete copy of the Termiadur Addysg. The complaint to the Commissioner concerns the request for a copy of the Termiadur Addysg. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government does not hold the information itself, nor is it held by Bangor University on behalf of the Welsh Government in accordance with section 3(2)(b) of the FOIA. However, the Welsh Government breached section 10 of the FOIA in failing to comply with section 1 within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Please note that both English and Welsh language versions of the decision notice are included in the PDF below.
Crynodeb: Gofynnodd yr achwynydd am wybodaeth ynghylch cytundeb rhwng Llywodraeth Cymru a Phrifysgo
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 3
View Welsh Government
31 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the ethnicity and remuneration of senior officials at the Bank of England (the Bank). The Bank disclosed the information regarding remuneration but refused to disclose the information about ethnicity relying on section 40(2) – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the bank is correct to rely on section 40(2) to refuse the request at point 2 relating to ethnicity. She does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Bank of England
31 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from North East Lincolnshire Council about actions undertaken in response to a specific complaint reference. The Council initially refused to comply with the request on the basis that it would disclose information that would be exempt under sections 40(1), 40(2) and 41(1). The Council subsequently clarified to the Commissioner that it had incorrectly cited these exemptions and instead should have refused to confirm or deny that it held relevant information under the exemption provided by section 40(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the exemption provided by section 40(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View North East Lincolnshire Council
31 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information which supports assertions on Cumbria County Council’s website relating to ragwort. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cumbria County Council did not meet the requirements of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. She does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Cumbria County Council
30 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning compensation for sex crime victims. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC did not deal with the request in accordance with the FOIA. This is because the public authority provided its response outside the statutory 20 working days and it has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As a response has now been provided during the course of the investigation, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View BBC
30 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to complaints and concerns raised about the Leicester Medical School. The QAA has explained that it is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA. It has therefore refused to respond to this request under the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the QAA is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA. She therefore upholds the QAA’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
30 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested access to a closed file at TNA which contained correspondence between Sir Robert Mark, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and Lord Mountbatten. TNA opened much of the file for inspection, but ultimately withheld information from sixteen documents under the exemptions provided by section 24 – national security, section 27 – international relations, section 37(1)(b) – conferring of honours, section 40(2) – personal information and section 41 – information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA is entitled to rely on the exemptions provided by sections 27, 37, 40(2) and 41 to withhold all the disputed information apart from one document. That document, labelled as document 14 by TNA, was withheld under section 40(2). The Commissioner has concluded that the information in question does not constitute personal data and therefore cannot be withheld under that exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose docu
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 37; FOI 40
View The National Archives
30 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked Exeter City Council to confirm the identity of the party with whom it has a contracted to provide temporary accommodation at a property known as Crescent House Bed and Breakfast. The Council has confirmed the ownership of Crescent House by providing the complainant with a copy of the Land Registry entry for the property. The Council supplied a redacted copy of the contract it has with the proprietor and has refused to supply the redacted details in reliance on section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that the Exeter City Council properly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA to the details it redacted from the contract it has with the proprietor of Crescent House. The Council is entitled to withhold those details.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Exeter City Council
30 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the closed extract from a file. The request was refused by the National Archives (TNA) on the grounds of health and safety (section 38 of FOIA). The Commissioner has found that section 38(1) is engaged and that in all the circumstances the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View The National Archives
30 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office for correspondence relating to an immigration raid. 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 the MOJ to respond to the request in accordance with the obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
30 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a survey of the drainage system on a specified road. Swindon Borough Council (the Council) originally relied on regulation 12(4)(a) and stated the information was not held. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the Council widened its interpretation of the scope of the request and disclosed information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR and made available all information held falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does, however, find the Council breached regulation 5(2) by failing to disclose the information within the statutory time frame. As the Council has disclosed the information held, the Commissioner does not require it to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Swindon Borough Council
30 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a specific set of minutes as well as information relating to monitoring and deputy monitoring officers from Mid Suffolk District Council. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council provided the complainant with information within the scope of the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with section 1 with regard to the requests MF660(i) and MF661(f) in now providing the information that is held, but in providing it outside the required 20 working days, the council has breached section 10. The Commissioner has also found the council has failed to comply with section 16(1) of the FOIA in failing to clarify with the requester the specific information sought at MF661(g). The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response to the complainant after having clarified with him the exact nature of his request MF661(g) to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View Mid Suffolk District Council
30 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the closed extract from a file. The request was refused by the National Archives (TNA) on the grounds of health and safety (section 38 of FOIA). The Commissioner has found that section 38(1) is engaged and that in all the circumstances the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View The National Archives