12 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from United Utilities Water Limited (UUWL) on cryptosporidium contamination of water. UUWL initially refused the request under regulation 12(5)(b) and then later 12(4)(c) as it considered it to be formulated in too general a manner. During the Commissioner’s investigation the regulation 12(4)(b) exception was also considered. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) has been correctly applied and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, she also finds UUWL has not met its obligations under regulation 9(2) in providing sufficient advice and assistance to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9(2)
View United Utilities
12 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications relating to a complaint he made to the Charity Commission about a particular charity. The Charity Commission refused to disclose the requested information under section 31(1)(g) with subsection (2)(a), (b), (c), (f) and (g) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(f) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0015 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Charity Commission
12 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested time sheets for particular individuals recording time spent on specified work. The Council provided the complainant with some information but confirmed that further information was not held under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the Council was correct to confirm that it does not hold any further information, other than that which was provided, under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View York City Council
12 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a program on Radio 4 called ‘Thought for Today’. 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. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0013 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
12 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for four files dating from 1977 and 1978 concerning litigation about the resettlement of Chagossians from the British Indian Ocean Territory. The FCO withheld the files on the following sections of FOIA: sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations), section 29(1)(b) (the economy) and section 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that only some parts of the requested files are exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemptions cited by the FCO. The remainder of the files need to be disclosed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 29
12 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainants requested to know who had made a complaint to Reigate and Banstead Borough Council (the Council) about them. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing the exceptions at regulations 12(5)(b) (the course of justice), 12(5)(f) (voluntary supply) and 13 (personal information) of the EIR. The Commissioner has considered the Council’s application of regulation 13 and has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure under regulation 13 of the EIR. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
12 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the process that Land Registry undertakes when making changes to the boundaries of any property it holds on file. Land Registry initially incorrectly informed the complainant that her request was not a valid information request. Following intervention from the Commissioner, Land Registry provided a revised response and refused the request under Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Land Registry later revised its position and instead refused the request under Regulation 12(4)(b)(manifestly unreasonable) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner’s decision is that Land Registry was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require Land Registry to engage any further with the complainant in this matter.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View HM Land Registry
12 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Trust staff and the complaint’s procedure. 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 North East London NHS Foundation Trust
12 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of times the c-word has been broadcast by various BBC channels in 2016. 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. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
12 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking Cabinet minutes and correspondence dating from 1991 in which the Bank of Credit & Commerce International was discussed. The Cabinet Office relied on section 35(3) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any Cabinet minutes. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held relevant correspondence but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 21, 27, 35 and 41 of FOIA. It also sought to rely on section 23(5) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any further correspondence falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 35(3) in the manner which it did. However, for the reasons set out in this notice the Commissioner has also concluded that the various exemptions cited by the Cabinet Office only provide a basis to withhold some of the correspondence that it acknowledges holding. The remaining corre
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 23; FOI 27; FOI 35; FOI 41
View Cabinet Office
12 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Morecambe Bay Investigation. The Department of Health (‘DH’) has refused to comply with the requests, which it says are vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the two requests are vexatious and DH is correct not to comply with them. The Commissioner does not require DH to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0029 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department of Health and Social Care
11 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Science Museum Group (the Museum) to disclose information relating to any security meetings, training or briefings that have involved BP in 2015. The Museum disclosed some information but redacted other information under section 40 of the FOIA. The complainant’s concerns were that further recorded information may be held falling within the scope of his request and that the Museum may have incorrectly applied section 40 of the FOIA to some of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Museum has now identified all recorded information falling within the scope of the request and, with the exception of section 40 of the FOIA, has now disclosed this to the complainant. In relation to the application of section 40 of the FOIA, the Commissioner was only asked to review the application of this exemption to an agenda item in which the names and job titles of two attendees were redacted. The Commissioner
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Science Museum Group
11 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about asylum seekers from the Home Office (the “HO”). The HO refused to provide this citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the HO also suggested that some information may not be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the HO to disclose the information withheld under section 40(2) and to issue a fresh response in respect of any information within the scope of the request which is not held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Home Office
11 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in the form of a file retained by the Ministry of Defence (‘MoD’). This file is not declassified although other related documents in the series have been transferred to The National Archives and are open to public inspection. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Defence (the ‘MoD’) has appropriately applied the exemption at section 23(1) of the FOIA, information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters. However, the Commissioner finds that the MoD breached section 17(1) of the FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with a refusal notice within 20 working days following the date of his request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0018 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 23
View Ministry of Defence
11 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Tate relating to two meetings that took place in February 2015 involving BP. Tate disclosed some information to the complainant but redacted some personal data under section 40 of the FOIA. The complainant’s main concerns involved an agenda item and the limited information Tate seemed to hold. The complaint relating to the agenda item was resolved during the Commissioner’s investigation but the complainant wished to still question whether further recorded information to that already provided is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Tate does not hold any further recorded information. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Tate
11 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (“the Council”) information about credit balances on business rates accounts. The Council refused to provide the information on the basis that sections 12 and 31 applied to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12 to the request but that it has not provided the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance under section 16. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
10 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made six requests to North East Lincolnshire Council for varied information relating to the administration of Council Tax. The Council refused to comply with the requests under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0019 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View North East Lincolnshire Council
10 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a three part request, the complainant has requested information about a report into Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust. NHS Improvement (NHSI) released information with regard to the first two parts. It refused to comply with the third part of the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA; it said to do so would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that: NHSI is correct to apply section 12(1) to part 3 of the request. NHSI breached section 16(1) of the FOIA as it did not give the complainant adequate advice and assistance with regard to this part of the request at the time it responded to the request. The complainant has now received advice as to how part 3 of the request might be refined and he has the option of submitting a new request to NHSI if he so wishes. As a result, the Commissioner does not require NHSI to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View NHS England
10 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a deceased individual’s medical records. The General Medical Council (GMC) says the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the FOIA as it is already reasonably accessible to the complainant through other means, namely the Access to Health Records Act 1990. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 21(1) of the FOIA. She does not require the GMC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View GMC
10 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a policy discussion report. The BBC explained 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 was excluded from FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0017 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
10 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested confirmation that the Chair of the Board of Governors “signed off” on all financial arrangements between the University of Bolton and the Vice Chancellor during his period of office. The University confirmed that it does not hold information in a recorded form which provides a direct response to the complainant’s question. The University’s position is that it has provided all recorded information which falls broadly within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that she is satisfied that the University has provided the complainant with all recorded information held which falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bolton NHS Trust
10 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to Transport for London (TfL) for information about travelcards. TfL failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Transport for London
10 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to Manchester City Council for information about the replacement of a parking sign. The Council responded that no recorded information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that no recorded information is likely to be held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Manchester City Council
9 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the rental of Eastville Park. Bristol City Council provided some of the information and withheld other information under the exemption for prejudice to commercial interests, section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bristol City 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 Bristol City Council
9 Jan 2017Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application. Harrogate Borough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for third party personal data (regulation 13 of the EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that Harrogate Borough Council breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 11(4) of the EIR and that it correctly withheld information under regulation 13. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
9 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding the Planning Sounding Board. The Department for Communities and Local Government provided part of the requested information, but withheld the remainder stating regulations 12(4)(e) – internal communications, and 12(5)(d) – confidentiality of proceedings, were engaged. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it disclosed the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that in providing the information outside the prescribed 20 working day time frame, the Department for Communities and Local Government has breached regulation 5(2). However, as the information has been disclosed, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
9 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for information related to the implementation of the Universal Credit Programme. DWP confirmed that it holds information relevant to the request. It advised the complainant on two occasions that it required further time to consider the public interest test. To date, DWP has failed to provide the complainant with a substantive response. By failing to do so, the Commissioner has concluded that DWP breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires DWP to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a substantive response to their information request. If DWP decides to withhold any information then the complainant should be provided with a refusal notice giving a full explanation as to why the information will not be disclosed, including details of any public interest consideration.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
9 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information which in his view relates to the University of Huddersfield’s conferment of an Honorary Professorship/Fellowship on the Duchess of York. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority does not hold any information relating to the conferment of an Honorary Professorship/Fellowship on the Duchess of York, since no such award has been conferred. The Commissioner has also found that the public authority complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance within the meaning in section 16 FOIA in its handling of the request. She however found the public authority in breach of the procedural requirement in section 10(1) FOIA. The Commissioner has since determined that the public authority did not in fact breach section 10(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View The University of Huddersfield
9 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Brighton and Hove City Council (the council) regarding the decision to dissolve Seaside Community Futures (SCF). The council maintains that as SCF was an independent limited company, it does not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to state that the requested information is not held and has therefore complied with section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Brighton and Hove City Council
5 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Managing Director of Worcester City Council (‘the Council’). The Council says it does not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information and has met its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0014 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Worcester City Council
5 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a particular planning application. Wychavon District Council (‘the Council’) initially said that all the relevant information it holds is published on its website but released other information to the complaint during the Commissioner’s investigation. The complainant considers that the Council holds additional relevant information that it has not released. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has released to the complainant all the information that it holds that falls within the scope of his request and has met its obligations under regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Wychavon District Council
5 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the movement of units of blood. South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) has released some information and withheld some under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considers this information to be the personal information of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is the personal data of third persons and the Trust is entitled to withhold it under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust
5 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on a standards committee meeting regarding a complaint from one councillor about another. The council initially claimed section 44 of the Act applied (statutory prohibition) but during the course of the Commissioner's investigation it disclosed all of the relevant information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to comply with section 10(1) of the Act in that it did not provide the information to the complainant within the 20 working days required by the Act. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Forest of Dean District Council
5 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the provision of primary medical services at Sudbury Primary Care Centre. NHS Improvement holds information falling within the scope of the request and is withholding it under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA (prejudice to the exercise of a public authority’s functions). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)(g) and that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View NHS England
4 Jan 2017Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Waltham Forest (“the Council”) about planning decisions in High Road, Leyton. 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. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a response under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Waltham Forest Council
4 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the British Museum (the Museum) in relation to two meetings that took place in February 2015 involving BP. The Museum disclosed the requested information with some personal data redacted under section 40 of the FOIA. The complainant’s concerns focussed on whether further recorded information was held, as he felt he had reason to doubt the Museum’s response. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the Museum does not hold any further recorded information to that already provided. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View British Museum
4 Jan 2017Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the assurances about customer safety provided to TfL by the operator of UberPOOL. TfL applied the exemptions provided by regulation 31, that disclosing the information would prejudice its regulatory functions, and section 41, information provided in confidence. It later withdrew the application of these exemptions from one piece of information, the fourteenth document it identified as falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL is required to disclose the fourteenth document it identified as falling within the scope of the request. However TfL is entitled to rely on section 31 to withhold the remaining information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Transport for London
23 Dec 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Ministry of Justice information relating to the 2014-2015 pay remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office and the salary increases awarded to its Executive Team in the middle of 2014. The Ministry of Justice disclosed some of the requested information but withheld the rest under sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(d) and 40(2) of the FOIA. As the complainant did not take issue with the Ministry of Justice’s application of section 40(2), the scope Commissioner’s investigation was limited to the application of section 35(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice has correctly applied section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA to the information covered by Part 1 of the complainant’s request and the public interest is in favour of maintaining the exemption. With regard to the information covered by Part 2 of the request the Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice has correctly engaged section 35(1)(d) but that the public interest is in fa
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 35; FOI 35(1)(d)
View Ministry of Justice
22 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a named police officer from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). Having initially refused to confirm or deny holding any information by virtue of section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA, the MPS subsequently found the request to be vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Metropolitan Police Service
22 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an independent report prepared by an agent regarding work which was carried out on a property by Eastbourne Homes, together with the actions of other parties (including council staff) who were involved in this process. The council applied section 41 (information provided in confidence) to the report however it did disclose the recommendations from the report to the complainant together with an action plan as to how it intended to address the recommendations. The Commissioner’s decision is that council has correctly applied section 41 to the information. The Commissioner does not require Eastbourne Homes Limited to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
21 Dec 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the serving of a Noise Abatement Order served on her. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea withheld the information under regulations 12(5)(b) (ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature) and 13 (personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has applied the exceptions appropriately. She also considers that regulation 5(3) (personal data of the applicant) of the EIR applies to some of the requested information. However, the Commissioner considers that Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has breached regulation 9(1) (advice and assistance). The Commissioner does not require the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0010 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 13; FOI 9
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
21 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the amount of people successfully intercepted at juxtaposed ports in France and Belgium between January and June 2016. The Home Office failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
21 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Home Office paying compensation for unlawfully detaining individuals under immigration powers. The Home Office failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
21 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to funding for youth programmes. The Home Office failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
21 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested supporting information relating to a military medal review from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office confirmed that information was held and could be found on its website, and provided the complainant with a link to the location of the information. The complainant considered further information is held and appealed to the Commissioner. The Commissioner’s decision is that the review was independent of government and so for the purposes of the Act that Cabinet Office does not hold the information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Cabinet Office
21 Dec 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested sensitive personal information about a named police officer. Having determined this matter, the Commissioner proceeded to consider two additional and closely connected matters. The Commissioner decided that Humberside Police had acted correctly in relying on the section 14(1) (vexatious requests) Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) exemption to refuse all three requests. She does not require Humberside Police take any steps to comply with the legislation. Humberside Police did not respond within 20 working days of receiving the request and in so doing breached the requirements of sections 10(1) (time or compliance) and 17(1) (refusal of request) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Humberside Police
21 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to pregnant women held in immigration detention. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because it did not provide a response to the request within 20 working days. The Home Office has now responded and the Commissioner does not require it to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
20 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the number of charging orders granted on specific days, by named Judges, at specific Courts. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held information with the scope of the request but refused to provide it citing section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
20 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of Individual or Exceptional Funding Requests (IFRs). NHS England withheld the detailed breakdown of the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has correctly applied this exemption and does not require NHS England to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View NHS England
20 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a record of complaints made by staff about a doctor. The University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust (the Trust) withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied sections 1 and 40 and does not require the Trust to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0009 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust