20 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the outcome of an interview he believed was held regarding an allegation of misconduct in public office. Cumbria Constabulary (the Constabulary) neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information citing section 40(5) of the FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was correct to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cumbria Constabulary
20 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to York City Council (“the Council”) for information about posters and advertising hoardings which she believed had been illegally posted in York City Centre. The Council refused the first part of the request under section 14(1) on the grounds that it was vexatious and for the second part of the request it said that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 14(1) to the first part of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View York City Council
20 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the conviction and punishment of a named individual. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information citing section 40(5) of the FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ cited section 40(5) correctly and so was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0316 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
20 Dec 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning complaints raised with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and FOS’ scheme rules. FOS released some information. FOS said it was not obliged to comply with part of the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA as to do so would exceed the appropriate cost limit. Finally, FOS said that some of the requested information is exempt from release under section 21 of the FOIA because it is already reasonably accessible to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that: On the balance of probabilities, FOS has released all the relevant information that it holds with regard to one part of the request, and holds no further information. FOS breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it did not respond to the request within 20 working days. FOS is not obliged to respond to part of the request as to do so would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(1). It has complied with its obligation under section 16(1) to offer advice and a
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12
19 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (“the Council”) information about credit balances on business rates accounts. The Council withheld the requested information under section 31(1)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 31(1)(a) to the withheld information and so she does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
19 Dec 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a letter concerning the development of the British Bill of Rights. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) confirmed it held the requested information but refused to provide it citing sections 27(1) (international relations) and 35(1) (formulation of government policy etc.) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is that section 35(1)(a) of FOIA is engaged and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner therefore did not proceed to consider the MOJ’s application of section 27(1) to the same information. She does not require the MOJ to take any steps as a result of this decision; however, the MOJ has breached section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0007 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
19 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various items of information regarding the ‘Wales Internet’ including the number of complaints that the Welsh Government had received in the past year. The Welsh Government made one attempt to clarify with the complainant the nature of her request, however although it was still uncertain regarding the information she was seeking, it informed the complainant that it did not hold relevant information. The Commissioner has determined than, on an objective reading, the clarification provided by the complainant was open to more than one interpretation, and her approach to section 1(3) of the FOIA is that a public authority must seek clarification of a request whose meaning is not clear or is open to more than one objective reading. As the Welsh Government made no further attempt to clarify with the complainant which interpretation she intended, it has failed to comply with section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Welsh Government’s failure to respond to part A of the re
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Welsh Government
19 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Westminster City Council (“the Council”) information about credit balances on its business rate accounts. The Council withheld the information under section 31(1)(a) and 41 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 31(1)(a) to the withheld information and so she does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Westminster Council
19 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a named nightclub and the conduct of its security staff. The Security Industry Authority (SIA) refused to confirm or deny holding the requested information citing sections 40(5) (personal information), 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated whether the SIA was entitled to apply section 30(3). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30(3) of the FOIA is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She therefore decided that the SIA was entitled to rely on section 30(3) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any relevant information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Security Industry Authority
19 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Home Office the full contents of four historic files dating from the 1990s and dealing with aspects of Labour Party policy, open government and access to environmental information. After a long delay, the Home Office disclosed most of the information requested but withheld some relying on several FOIA exemptions. The complainant challenged the application of two of those exemptions. The Commissioner decided that in withholding the disputed information, the Home Office had correctly relied on the FOIA exemptions at section 35(1)(b) (Ministerial communications) and section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner did not require the Home Office to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
15 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about restraint and confiscation orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA). The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) denied holding the requested information relating to restraint orders. It also denied holding the requested information relating to confiscation orders citing section 11(5)(c) of the FOIA (the dataset provisions). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ did not cite section 11 correctly and that it breached section 16 of the FOIA by failing to provide advice and assistance to the complainant about his request. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response in accordance with its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA and provide the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA).
Exemptions cited: FOI 11; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
15 Dec 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests for information about refugees and unauthorised entry into the UK from France. In relation to his first request, the Home Office stated that it was unable to establish whether it held this information within the cost limit and therefore refused the request under section 12(2) (costs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 12(2) in relation to that request. In relation to his second request for information, the Home Office refused to provide the requested information citing section 31(1)(e) of the FOIA (the operation of the immigration controls). The Commissioner has determined that section 31(1)(e) was cited correctly and so the Home Office was not obliged to disclose this information. The Commissioner has found, however, that the Home Office breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the FOIA by delaying its response to both requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 17; FOI 31
View Home Office
15 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an investigation from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Information Commissioner requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
15 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about herself from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny holding any information by virtue of sections 40(5)(a) and 40(5)(b)(i) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 40(5)(a) as any information which may be held would relate to the complainant personally. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
15 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a draft manuscript and any accompanying notes seized by Greater Manchester Police (“GMP”) as evidence in a counter terrorism investigation in 2008. GMP refused the request, citing the exemption at section 30(1)(a) (investigations and proceedings) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 30(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require GMP to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Greater Manchester Police
15 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to cases discontinued at trial. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it citing sections 32 (court records) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated the MoJ’s application of section 32(1)(c)(ii) and concluded that the MoJ was entitled to rely on this exemption to withhold the information. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
14 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the death of an individual. Under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA West London Mental Health NHS Trust (the Trust) neither confirms nor denies that it holds this information, which it says would be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is correct to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information, and that the exemption under section 40(5)(b)(i) is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0003 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West London NHS Trust
14 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Birmingham City Council regarding telephone calls placed by a housing officer to Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust. The council’s position is that it does not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct when it said that the requested information was not held. Therefore the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Birmingham City Council
14 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information linked to council tax regarding a specified property from Huntingdonshire District Council (the council). The council responded initially to say that the most of the information was not held, and that section 21 applied to the remainder as the council had previously provided it to the complainant. During the course of the investigation, the council ceased to rely on section 21 and provided a further copy of this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request, and therefore the council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0011 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Huntingdonshire District Council
14 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the insurance/indemnity arrangements of a particular dentist for specific years. The General Dental Council (GDC) has refused to confirm or deny that it holds this information under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA, as to do so would release the personal data of a third person and so breach the Data Protection Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that GDC is correct to neither confirm nor deny it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require GDC to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0005 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View General Dental Council
14 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of the advice and discussions that took place between various parties and the Gambling Commission to inform their report ‘Research into Gambling Machines’. The Gambling Commission considered the information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Gambling Commission has correctly applied the exemptions and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Gambling Commission
14 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for copies of briefings prepared for The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office in advance of Parliamentary debates relating to the introduction of individual electoral registration by the last Coalition Government. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was not entitled to rely on the exemption contained at section 35(1)(a) FOIA because in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
14 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the CCTV footage of the murder of Jo Cox from Kirklees Metropolitan Council (the council). The council responded by neither confirming nor denying that the information was held under section 31(3), the exemption for law enforcement, and section 40(5), the exemption for personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely on section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny that the information is held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
14 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of all communications concerning information that was accidentally released by the BBC. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. She upholds the complaint but requires no further action to be taken as a response has now been provided to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View BBC
14 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Streetly Cemetery. Walsall Council (the Council) failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the Council breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). 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 Walsall Council
14 Dec 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding alleged loans provided to Bradford Bulls Rugby team. The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council responded to parts of the request and withheld some information under the exemptions for personal data (section 40(2)) and prejudice to commercial interests (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
14 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the BBC for copies of the Monthly Performance Pack for the last three years and the 10 day report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days. However, as a response has now been provided the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View BBC
13 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to North East Lincolnshire Council for the general information provided to Enforcement Agents when enforcing a Liability Order. The Council disclosed held information, but the complainant disputed the completeness of this. The Commissioner’s decision is that no further recorded information is likely to be held and that the Council has complied with section 1(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View North East Lincolnshire Council
13 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Kirklees Metropolitan Council about the number of staff subject to disciplinary action over six years. The Council refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The complainant subsequently contested the Council’s refusal. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the exclusion provided by section 12(1), and has also complied with the requirement of section 16(1) to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
13 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Kirklees Metropolitan Council about any communications between the Council and the Crown Prosecution Service. The Council responded that no information was held. The complainant subsequently contested the Council’s response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to comply with section 1(1). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response that complies with section 1(1) or issue a valid refusal notice under section 17.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
13 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about all outside police force investigations requested by the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police since 1 December 2012. North Yorkshire Police has not provided a substantive response to the request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that North Yorkshire Police has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA in that it has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires North Yorkshire Police 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 1; FOI 10
View North Yorkshire Police
12 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about civil claims made by former or current detainees at a specified immigration detention centre. The Home Office refused to disclose this information under section 12(1) of FOIA as it estimated that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
12 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for the HSE’s report on a blowout that occurred on the Elgin Offshore Well Head that resulted in the evacuation of all on board personnel. The HSE provided the complainant with the report but made redactions under regulation 12(5)(b) and 13 EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) and 13 EIR in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13
View Health and Safety Executive
12 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes or correspondence relating to junior doctor fill rates for 2016. HEE refused to provide the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HEE correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View NHS England
12 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to the junior doctor contract negotiations. HEE provided the complainant with some of the requested information but refused to provide some of the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HEE correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View NHS England
9 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (the FCO) for information related to allegations of breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen. The FCO confirmed that it holds information relevant to the request. It repeatedly advised the complainant that it required further time to consider the public interest test. To date, the FCO has failed to provide the complainant with a substantive response. By failing to do so, the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO breached section 17(3) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the FCO to provide the complainant with a substantive response to their information request. If the FCO 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.
The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this deci
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
8 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested documents relating to the parish council taking over the management and tenancy of a community centre from a charity. The council initially refused to respond to the request, but subsequently allowed the complainant to view some information. However the complainant did not consider that the documents which were provided responded to his requests. He then made a second request for copies of these documents as the council refused to provide him with a copy at the time he was able to view them. During the course of the Commissioner investigation the council disclosed all of the information to the complainant. The complainant therefore asked the Commissioner to consider the delay in the council providing him with the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kempsey Parish Council has failed to comply with section 10(1) of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
8 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the £150m Transitional Grant announced for 2016/17 as part of the final Local Government Financial Settlement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Communities and Local Government has correctly applied the exemption at section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
8 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recorded information from Derbyshire Dales District Council. The requested information concerns a public house, owned by the complainant, which has been listed by the Council as an asset of community value (“ACV”) under the Localism Act 2011. The Council’s decision to list the public house as an ACV is subject to an appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber). The Commissioner has decided that Derbyshire Dales District Council has properly applied section 42 to email correspondence it holds where a claim of legal professional privilege can be maintained. She has also decided that the Council does not hold any further email correspondence concerning the Council’s decision to list the named public house as an ACV and consequently the Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 42
View Derbyshire Dales District Council
8 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request to the Department for Transport (DfT) for information related to assessment reports produced by the Major Projects Authority on HS2 during 2015. The DfT handled the request under FOIA and found that the information was exempt under section 35(1)(a) (policy formulation and development). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the DfT said that were the Commissioner to find that the request should have been considered under the EIR then it would seek to rely on the exceptions in regulations 12(4)(d) (material still in course of completion), 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings etc.). The Commissioner has found that the request is for environmental information and the DfT should have considered it under the EIR. The Commissioner has also decided that the regulation 12(5)(d) and regulation 12(4)(e) exceptions apply to the withheld information but that the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissi
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(d)
View Department for Transport
8 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for reports into events that led to the Employment Tribunal of a former employee of the Trust. The Trust refused to disclose some of the requested information under the exemptions in section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement), 40(2) (personal information), section 41 (information provided in confidence), section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has found that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) and she requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Trust
8 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the appeal procedure relating to an Adult Safeguarding Enquiry. 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 Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Partnership NHS Trust
8 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Safeguarding and Public Protection Incidents Critical Learning Review carried out by Essex County Council in respect of the Council’s Youth Offending Service. The Commissioner’s decision is that Essex County Council has correctly applied section 40(2) to the requested information and it is therefore entitled to withhold it from publication.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Essex County Council
8 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails which have been sent and received by Gill Alexander, Hartlepool Borough Council’s Chief Executive and those sent and received by Sally Robinson, the Council’s Director of Child and Adult Services. The requested emails concern the murder of Angela Wrightson in December 2014. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hartlepool Borough Council has correctly applied sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) to the emails requested by the complainant and therefore the Council is entitled to withhold them.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Hartlepool Council
7 Dec 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a number of requests relating to the enforcement of particular planning conditions. The Council dealt with the requests in a single response. The Council provided some information but withheld other information under the exceptions provided by regulation 12(3) – third party personal data and regulation 12(5)(b) - adverse affect on the course of justice. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council identified some additional information relating to the legal advice it had received, but argued that it did not hold this information for the purposes of the EIR. It went on to argue that if the Commissioner deemed this information was held, some of it was exempt under regulation 12(5)(b) and some of it under regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications. It also applied regulation 12(4)(e) to one of the pieces of information it had originally held under 12(5)(b). In respect of information on certain tests which the complainant was particularly inter
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Warwick District Council
6 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Caedmon College and Eskdale School amalgamation. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Yorkshire County Council has correctly engaged the exemptions at section 36(2)(b)(ii) (inhibition to the free and frank exchange of views) of the FOIA but that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View North Yorkshire County Council
6 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to how the funds contained within the £300m transitional relief fund for local councils have been allocated. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Communities and Local Government has correctly applied the exemption at section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
6 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the London Borough of Lewisham (“the Council”) a copy of the Brockley Private Finance Initiative (“PFI”) contract. The Council disclosed some parts of the contract but withheld other parts under sections 40(2) and 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly applied section 43(2) to the information that it has withheld under that exemption. She requires the Council to disclose to the complainant all of the information that it has withheld under section 43(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Lewisham Council
5 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to legal advice about the status of a particular bridge/unclassified road. The Council withheld the information under regulation 12(5)(b) as it considered it to be subject to legal professional privilege (‘LPP’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Carmarthenshire County Council
5 Dec 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various items of information in support of an on-going issue between herself and the Governing Body of Hendre Infants School (‘The Governing Body’). The Governing Body, provided some information, confirmed that it did not hold other information and also withheld some by virtue of section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Governing Body does not hold the information in respect of items 1,3,5,6,7,8,9,15 and 18 of the request, nor items 6 and 7 under the heading of Further and in regard to. However, as the Governing Body has subsequently provided the information in respect of item 22 to the Commissioner, it has breached section 1(1) of the FOIA with its response to this item of the request. The Governing Body has also correctly relied on section 40(2) in relation to items 4,11,12,20 and 23 of the request. However, its failure to provide a response within the stipulated timescales, represents a breach of section 10 of the FOIA. In fai
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View EAGLEY INFANT SCHOOL