27 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence to and from the Council Leader regarding spatial zones in the Issues and Options document published by Eastleigh Borough Council and the Eastleigh Strategic Transport Study Interim Report - Issues and Options December 2015. The Commissioner’s decision is that Eastleigh Borough Council has incorrectly applied the exception at regulation 12(4)(d) to the ‘Eastleigh Strategic Transport Study – Project Scope; June 2015’ but correctly applied that exception to the ‘Eastleigh Strategic Transport Study Interim Report - Issues and Options December 2015’. However, she has decided that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception at regulation 12(4)(d) does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner has also decided that Eastleigh Borough Council has correctly applied the exception at regulation 12(4)(e) to withheld internal emails and the presentation to Members
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Eastleigh Borough Council
27 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the identity of attendees at specific Vulnerable Learners’ Service Panel meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Somerset Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View North Somerset Council
26 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to Wigan Metropolitan Council (“the Council”) for a copy of a food hygiene inspection report. The Council refused the request under the section 30(1)(b) (investigations) exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 31(1)(b) was correctly engaged and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Wigan Council
26 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainants requested information on the sale or potential sale of a strip of land for development, together with other correspondence relating to the sale and copies of emails from a councillor. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities the council was correct to state that no further information is held falling within the scope of the request. He has also decided that the council did not comply with Regulation 5(2) (time for compliance) in respect of part (v) of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Malvern Hills District Council
26 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Camden (“the Council”) relating to the Council’s policy on Freedom Passes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Camden Council
26 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Camden (“the Council”) relating a redevelopment of 156 West End Lane. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, the Commissioner considers that the Council has not met its obligations under regulation 9(2) in providing sufficient advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide assistance to the complainant on how to reduce the scope of his request so that it is no longer manifestly unreasonable. The Council 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)(b); EIR 9(2)(a)
View Camden Council
26 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a report from 2014 looking into the council’s options on its smallholdings policies. The council withheld sections of the report applying Regulation 12(5)(e) and Regulation 13. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has incorrectly applied Regulation 12(5)(e) to some of the information which it withheld. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose Section 15 of the report, other than the last sentence of section 15(1)(f), and other than section 15(2). To disclose the first paragraph in section 16, redacting the list of the identities of the smallholdings/areas concerned and the recommendation for that area, and redacting the valuation data which ends each of the paragraphs (a)-(c).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Herefordshire Council
26 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Haringey Council (“the Council”) relating to the recovery measures referred to in a report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Haringey Council
26 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about particular clinical advisors. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has withheld the information which it says is personal data of third persons and therefore exempt from disclosure under the FOIA, under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is personal data and that PHSO is correct to withhold it under section 40(2) by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i). The Commissioner does not require PHSO to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
26 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications between the ICO and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea concerning FOI complaints about two individuals. The ICO says it does not hold this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICO does not hold the requested information and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Information Commissioner
26 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Bromley (“the Council”) broadly relating to a land encroachment at a specific address. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the Council was therefore correct to refuse to respond to the request under section 17(6) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Bromley Council
26 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for information relating to an investigation carried out by the HSE into the unreported RIDDOR incident of cancer developed by a student working at a named university. The HSE provided the complainant with some information but withheld some information under regulation 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b) and 13 EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to all documents to which it has been applied apart from documents 36, 39 and 41. The Commissioner does not consider that regulation 12(4)(e) was applied correctly to document 41 however it was applied correctly to documents 36 and 39. The Commissioner does consider that regulation 13 has been applied correctly (regulation 13 has not been applied to document 41). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose document 41.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13
View Health and Safety Executive
26 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about GP patients who disclose that they have been racially abused. Dicconson Group Practice (DGP) says it does not hold this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DGP does not hold the requested information and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner finds that DGP did not breach section 10(1) as it complied with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0031 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
26 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning a consortium trial. University College London Hospitals (UCLH) released some information. The complainant disputes that UCLH has released all the relevant information that it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, UCLH has disclosed all the relevant information that it held at the time of the request and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. UCLH breached section 10(1) however, as it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require UCLH to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
25 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of travel expenses incurred by the University of Bolton (“the University”) in relation to four named staff over a five year period. The University refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The complainant subsequently contested the University’s refusal. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the exclusion provided by section 12(1).The Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Bolton NHS Trust
25 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the spending in respect of the government leaflet ”Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK.” The Cabinet Office (‘CO’) initially sought to withhold the information in reliance of section 43(2) (Commercial interests). During the Commissioner’s investigation the CO disclosed the majority of the information, however, the remaining information was withheld on the basis of section 43(2) and section 41(1) (Information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the CO is not entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 41(1) and 43(2). She finds that the section 41(1) exemption is not engaged and although the section 43(2) exemption has been correctly applied, the public interest favours disclosure of the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the remaining withheld cost in respect of the leaflet to ensure compliance with the legisla
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
View Cabinet Office
25 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the minutes of meetings to discuss proposed changes at a local community centre. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, South Tyneside Council (the Council) does not hold the information requested. The Commissioner notes, however, that the Council’s response was outside of the statutory timeframe and it has, therefore, breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View South Tyneside Council
24 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to concerns expressed about the performance of a local primary school. Oxfordshire County Council (“the council”) disclosed all the information it said it held which was covered by the request, with redactions made under section 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The complainant challenged the council’s application of section 40 and also believed that it held more information which it had not disclosed to him. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to apply the exemption at section 40. The Commissioner also decided that, on the balance of probabilities, at the time of the request the council did not hold any further information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Oxfordshire County Council
24 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Horsham District Council about the proposed restoration of a quarry site. The Council disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under the exception provided by section 12(4)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The complainant subsequently contested the Council’s application of this exception. The Commissioner’s decision is that part of the withheld information does not constitute internal communications for the purposes of regulation 12(4)(e). The remaining withheld information does constitute internal communications, but the public interest test favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps: Disclose the withheld information, ensuring that any personal data is redacted in accordance with the Council’s obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Horsham District Council
24 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of emails sent from the email account of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The Department for Work and Pensions denied holding information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. DWP is not required to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0032 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
24 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for correspondence between FCO offices in London and FCO offices in four other countries about whether FCO buildings should or should not fly the gay pride flag at any stage. The FCO withheld the requested information on the basis of section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the exemption is engaged but has concluded that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours disclosing the requested information. However, in disclosing this information the FCO can redact the names of any junior staff on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 40
24 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Oakwood High (the school) relating to the provision of uniform. The school provided some information but refused to disclose other information citing section 43 of the FOIA for some but no exemption for the remainder. During the Commissioner’s investigation the requested information was disclosed to the complainant. However, the complainant remained dissatisfied with the way his request had been handled. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the school breached sections 10, 17(1)(b) and (c) of the FOIA. But as the requested information has been disclosed, she requires no further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View BIRCHWOOD HIGH SCHOOL
24 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from East Hertfordshire District Council about employee complaints of harassment and bullying. The Council disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the information under the exemption provided by section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View East Hertfordshire District Council
23 Jan 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 refused to provide this, citing sections 30(1)(c) and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30(1)(c) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She has not therefore considered the application of section 40(2). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Crown Prosecution Service
23 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Animal and Plant Health Agency (“APHA”) information about tests on cattle. APHA applied section 12 to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that APHA has correctly applied section 12 to the request and so does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. As an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, APHA does not constitute a public authority for the purposes of FOIA and so this notice is issued to its parent Department. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0030 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
23 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a Planning Contravention Notice. Cornwall Council initially withheld the information under the exception for personal data, regulation 13 of the EIR but during the Commissioner’s investigation it revised its position to withhold the information under the exception for the course of justice – regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that Cornwall Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Cornwall Council
23 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to a particular clinic run by the Trust, sent, or received by the office of two named doctors. The Trust provided some of the requested information but refused to provide the remainder under the exemptions provided by section 36(2) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs, section 40(2) – personal data and section 41 – information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36 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. 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 Trust.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Whittington Health NHS Trust
23 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to their business interests. Middlesbrough Borough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exceptions for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)), commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)), interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f) and personal data (regulation 13(1)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Middlesbrough Borough Council correctly handled the request under the EIR and correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e), regulation 12(5)(f) and regulation 13(1) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0026 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13(1)
View Middlesbrough Council
23 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) about reoffending data relating to serious sexual offences for a specified period. 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; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
23 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information in relation to a request submitted to the South Downs National Park Authority for pre-application planning advice. The South Downs National Park Authority withheld the information in its entirety under Regulations 12(5)(d), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the South Downs National Park Authority has not successfully engaged the exemptions under Regulations 12(5)(d), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR.The Commissioner requires the South Downs National Park Authority to disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View South Downs National Park Authority
23 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) about the Joint Asset Recovery Database. Following clarification of the request, the MOJ provided the information it held with redactions for personal information under section 40(2) of FOIA. It said it did not hold the remainder of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOJ has provided the information it holds, subject to the redactions made under section 40(2) of FOIA, which she finds to be engaged. She does not require the MOJ to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
19 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an alleged assault in which he was involved. West Midlands Police refused to confirm or deny holding the requested information citing section 40(5) of the FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 40(5)(a) exemption is engaged. The Commissioner does not require West Midlands Police to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0012 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Midlands Police
19 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from University College, London (UCL) in relation to the resignation of Professor Sir Tim Hunt. UCL refused to disclose that information (the requested information) citing sections 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c) and 40(2) by virtue of 40(3)(a)(i) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that section 40(2) of the FOIA is engaged in relation to the entirety of the requested information. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View University College London
19 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the detection of cryptosporidium in water samples by United Utilities Water Limited (UUWL). UUWL sought to withhold the information in parts 1 – 5 of the request on the basis of regulation 12(5)(b) and the information in part 6 under the exception at regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner found that the information at part 3 of the request was not held and that regulation 12(4)(d) was not engaged with regard to the information held at part 6 of the request. For parts 1, 2, 4 and 5 the Commissioner found the regulation 12(5)(b) exception was engaged and the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information held for part 6 of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(b)
View United Utilities
18 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested all documentation regarding the Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) application (original and addendum). Essex County Council (the council) initially responded by providing a link to the planning application associated with the IWMF in question. The internal review stated that the information was required in permanent form, such as on a disk or USB drive. The council maintained its position that the information was publicly available. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council clarified that all of the requested information was available to view on the planning register at County Hall with the exception of legal advice which it maintained was excepted from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly engaged regulation 6(1)(b) in stating that the majority of the requested information was publicly available and easily accessible. The Commissioner also finds that the counc
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Essex County Council
17 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to two meetings that took place in February 2015 that involved BP. The National Portrait Gallery (the Gallery) disclosed some information to the complainant, with personal data redacted under section 40 of the FOIA. The complainant remained dissatisfied and felt that the Gallery holds further recorded information. It is noted that further recorded information was located at the internal review stage and this gave the complainant cause for concern. However, the Commissioner has now investigated and concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the Gallery does not hold any further recorded information to that already identified. She does not therefore require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View National Portrait Gallery
17 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the council’s council tax function and the court costs incurred when issuing and processing summons and liability orders. The council disclosed some information to the complainant but the complainant remained dissatisfied, as she felt further recorded information should be held addressing the various elements of her request. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the council has now identified all the recorded information it does hold and provided this to the complainant. She is therefore satisfied that no further action is required in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Lambeth
17 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (“the Council”) relating to the Council’s records, policies and guidance on the handling of requests submitted to the Council under both the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2014 (“EIR”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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 Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Barking and Dagenham Council
17 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for the dates, times and locations of planned counter terrorism exercises. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information held within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemptions at sections 23(1) and 24(1) FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0023 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
17 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the legal advice received by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) from the legal QC on the issue of the proposed monthly newsletter. The Council identified information within the scope of the request but withheld this on the basis that information was legally professionally privileged and therefore exempt under section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision, after considering the public interest test, is that the Council has correctly applied this exemption and the public interest favours withholding the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Wirral Council
17 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the legal advice received by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) from the legal QC on the issue of the proposed monthly newsletter. The Council identified information within the scope of the request but withheld this on the basis that information was legally professionally privileged and therefore exempt under section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision, after considering the public interest test, is that the Council has correctly applied this exemption and the public interest favours withholding the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Wirral Council
17 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for the legal advice obtained by the authority in relation to the construction of a lorry park in Stanford by Highways England to ease congestion on the M20/A20 road network, along with correspondence relating to the legal advice. The public authority disclosed the related correspondence held within the scope of the request during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. However, it maintained that the instructions to counsel and the advice provided by counsel are legally privileged and therefore exempt from disclosure. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information constitutes environmental information within the meaning in regulation 2(1) of the EIR, and that the public authority was entitled to withhold it in reliance on the exception contained at regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
17 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the legal advice received by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) from the legal QC on the issue of the proposed monthly newsletter. The Council identified information within the scope of the request but withheld this on the basis that information was legally professionally privileged and therefore exempt under section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision, after considering the public interest test, is that the Council has correctly applied this exemption and the public interest favours withholding the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Wirral Council
16 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested detailed information about payments made to a contractor in respect of works carried out at Weedon churchyard. The complainant requires the costs of the works for a five year period, broken down to reflect individual jobs. The Council has determined that whilst it does hold a contract for groundwork and maintenance, including that carried out at Weedon, it does not hold any information to the detail which the complainant seeks. The Commissioner has determined that Daventry District Council does not hold the information which the complainant has requested. The Commissioner has therefore decided that the Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
16 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics which relate to cases of bullying and/or harassment at work within Kettering Borough Council. The Council provided the complainant with a response to each part of his request. The complainant’s position that the Council’s answers to parts 3 and 4 of his request cannot be correct. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kettering Borough Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA by providing the complaint with answers to his information request which properly reflects the recorded information the Council holds.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
16 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Bethnal Green Academy (now Green Spring Academy Shoreditch) (“the Academy”) information concerning the safeguarding of children from extremism. The Academy provided some information but withheld other information under section 36(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Academy has correctly applied section 36(2)(c) to the information that it has withheld and so she does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
16 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has submitted a number of requests for information to East Hampshire District Council. The information which the complainant seeks relates to a planning application concerning land at a particular location in Selborne. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Hampshire Distract Council has properly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA and Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to the complainant’s requests. The Council is therefore not obliged to comply with the complainant’s requests. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0038 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); FOI 14
View East Hampshire District Council
16 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office relating to a complaint which had concluded with a decision notice issued by the Information Commissioner. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information citing section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office correctly applied section 14(1) to the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Home Office
16 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a multi-part request, the complainant requested information relating to the provision of food for Jewish prisoners. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) applied section 14(2) of the FOIA (repeated request). Having considered its handling of part (1) of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ did not apply section 14(2) appropriately to that part of the request. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to part (1) of the request not relying on section 14(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Justice
16 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the duties, remuneration and responsibilities of an individual employed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The IPCC disclosed some information but withheld the remainder, citing the exemption at section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the IPCC was entitled to rely upon section 40(2) to withhold the information. However, by failing to issue a response within the statutory 20 working day timescale, the IPCC breached section 10(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Independent Office for Police Conduct