5 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the refurbishment of Conwy Bridge and the Colwyn Bay Waterfront Project. Conwy County Borough Council (‘the Council’) provided some information and withheld other information under section 43 of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed the information it originally withheld due to the passage of time. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information within the meaning of regulation 2(1)(c) of the EIR. Therefore the request ought to have been handled under the EIR rather than the FOIA. However, as the requested information has now been disclosed, the Commissioner has not ordered any steps. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) in failing to disclose the requested information within the statutory time for compliance.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1); EIR 5(2)
View Conwy County Borough Council
5 Dec 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various items of information from the Isle of Anglesey County Council (‘the Council’). The Council provided some information and stated other information was not held. In its internal review the Council provided some additional information relevant to one part of the request and maintained it did not hold any further recorded information relevant to the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed some additional information relevant to one part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information other than that which it has disclosed. However, the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA in failing to comply with section 1 within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Isle of Anglesey County Council
5 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a re-shaping base budget exercise undertaken by Cardiff Council (‘the Council’). The Council (‘the Council’) provided some information but the complainant considered it had not provided all of the information he had requested. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council acknowledged that it held additional information relevant to the request, but it considered the information to be exempt under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that either of these exemptions is engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Cardiff Council
5 Dec 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various items of information about advertising revenue generating street furniture structures known as advertising drums. Cardiff Council (‘the Council’) stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold the requested information. However, in failing to respond to the requests within the statutory timescales the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Cardiff Council
5 Dec 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various items of information in respect of a grievance investigation. Wrexham County Borough Council refused this request on the basis of section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wrexham County Borough Council should have relied on section 40(5) in respect of this request to neither confirm nor deny whether it held any relevant information. Additionally, in failing to provide a response within the required timescales, the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Wrexham County Borough Council
5 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made three requests to Hampshire County Council for information about a recreational trail called the ‘Meon Valley Trail’. The Council refused the requests under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the requests. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2017/0004) refused.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Hampshire County Council
1 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the London Borough of Newham (the “Council”), London Development Agency (LDA) and the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) regarding nomination rights to Olympic housing. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not dealt with the request for information in accordance with section 10 of the FOIA as it failed to provide a response to the request within that statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a response to the request of 18 May 2016 under the FOIA. 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: FOI 10
View Newham Council
1 Dec 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the county council relating to correspondence and other documents with a Parish Council regarding the parish council’s plan to take over the running of a library from the County Council. The council provided some information, withheld other information under section 42 (legal professional privilege), section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 43 (commercial interests). The complainant also questioned whether further information should have been disclosed to him. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 42 to the information. Following further information being disclosed to the complainant during her investigation she has also decided that on a balance of probabilities no further information is held by the council. She has also decided that the council failed to comply with the timescales required by section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 42
View Leicestershire County Council
1 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to a drone strike in Syria by the United States which targeted and killed a British national fighting with the so called Islamic State. 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 exemption at section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). She has also concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exclusions contained at sections 23(5) and 24(2) (security bodies and national security) and 35(3) (Law Officers advice) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held relevant information within the scope of the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 35; FOI 42
View Attorney General's Office
1 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to local government reorganisation. Gloucestershire County Council (the council) refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA as it considered responding would take over the appropriate cost limits. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 of the FOIA is engaged and the council has provided appropriate advice and assistance under section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Cherwell District Council
1 Dec 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Baverstock Academy (the Academy) copies of minutes of different committees, along with communications with the Education Funding Agency (EFA) on financial matters. The Academy has provided some information in response to the request but withheld the remaining records under variously sections 22 (information intended for future publication), 30 (investigations and proceedings), 31 (law enforcement), 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal data), 41 (information provided in confidence), 42 (legal professional privilege) and 43 (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, with the exception of information contained in two documents to which section 22 was incorrectly applied, the withheld information is subject to one of sections 40, 41, 42 or 43 of FOIA. In light of her findings, the Commissioner requires the Academy to disclose a complete copy of the EFA’s letter of 10 August and a redacted version of the EFA’s letter of 2 October
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 38; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 42; FOI 43
1 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to postal votes. Darlington Borough Council (the council) refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered it to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council are able to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Darlington Borough Council
1 Dec 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a series of requests to the University of Manchester (the University) for information variously relating to the operation of its policies, named individuals, and its decision-making pertaining to a particular situation. The University considers that it has provided the complainant with all the recorded information to which he was entitled. The Commissioner has decided that some of the requests are subject to the ‘personal data’ (sections 40(2) and 40(5)) and ‘legal professional privilege’ (section 42(1)) exemptions to the right to know and, for the remaining requests, the University has disclosed the relevant information. In light of her findings, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken by the University. She has determined however that the University did breach section 10(1) of FOIA as a result of its failure to respond to information requests within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40; FOI 42
View The University of Manchester
1 Dec 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for information on 28 March 2016. The council did not respond to the complainant until 16 May 2016. Further to this the council did not respond to the complainant explaining that some of the requested information was not held by it until 11 July 2016. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to comply with Regulation 5 (2) in that it failed to respond to the complainant's request within 20 working days. Whilst the council did seek to use Regulation 7(1) of the Act to extend its time for responding to the request to 40 working days it failed write to the complainant informing him of this within the initial 20 working day period as required by Regulation 7(3). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Halton Council
1 Dec 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a Service Level Agreement (SLA). Bath and North East Somerset Council (the council) informed the complainant that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold the requested SLA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bath and North East Somerset Council
30 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for copies of correspondence relating to the decision to award Grenville Janner a life peerage in 1997. The Cabinet Office disclosed a small amount of information but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 37(1)(b) (honours information); 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Cabinet Office also refused to confirm or deny on the basis of section 23(5) whether it held any information from a section 23(3) body falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner accepts that all of the withheld information falls within the scope of the section 37(1)(b), however in respect of the information concerning Lord Janner, she has decided that the public interest favours disclosure of this information. With regard to the remaining information contained in the correspondence which specifically refers to the nominations of other applicants, the Commissioner is
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 37; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Cabinet Office
30 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked whether a birth certificate was submitted by a named individual to the Government Legal Department (GLD). The GLD refused the request under section 41(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as to confirm or deny whether the information was held would be an actionable breach of confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GLD is entitled to refuse the request under section 41(2). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Government Legal Department
30 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for copies of correspondence relating to the decision to award Grenville Janner a life peerage in 1997. The Cabinet Office disclosed a small amount of information but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 37(1)(b) (honours information); 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Cabinet Office also refused to confirm or deny on the basis of section 23(5) whether it held any information from a section 23(3) body falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner accepts that all of the withheld information falls within the scope of the section 37(1)(b), however in respect of the information concerning Lord Janner, she has decided that the public interest favours disclosure of this information. With regard to the remaining information contained in the correspondence which specifically refers to the nominations of other applicants, the Commissioner is
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 37; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Cabinet Office
30 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted three requests to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information it held about Hemant Lakhani, who was convicted in the United States of attempting to support terrorism and subsequently died in prison. The FCO sought to withhold the information falling within the scope of these requests on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 27(1)(a) (international relations); 38(1)(a) (health and safety); 40(2) (personal data) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of either section 38(1)(a) or section 40(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 40
29 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to pre-application planning advice. Manchester City Council withheld the information under the exceptions for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)) and interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Manchester City Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) and regulation 12(5)(f) are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Manchester City Council
29 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of the Arts London (“the University”) relating to applicants offered a place on a course and their qualifications and nationality. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner requires the University to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View University of the Arts, London
29 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the improvements agreed for the Redcliffe Bay Petroleum Storage Depot (the depot). The Environment Agency (EA) released some information but refused to disclose the majority of information citing regulations 12(5)(a) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner has decided that regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR applies in this case. However, the Commissioner has decided that she has received insufficient evidence from the EA to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR applies so she requires the EA to disclose the requested information withheld under this exception. Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2016/0307) refused.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Environment Agency
29 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Liverpool City Council’s decision to pay the legal costs incurred by the Mayor in a dispute with his previous employer. The council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for Legal Professional Privilege – Section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Liverpool City Council has breached section 17 and correctly applied section 42 to withhold legal advice falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0315 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 42
View Liverpool City Council
29 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the internal investigation report into the disposal of Acklam Hall. The Commissioner’s decision is that Middlesbrough Council has correctly engaged the exemptions at sections 36(2)(b)(i) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice), and 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. She has also decided that the exemption at 36(2)(c) (prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA was incorrectly engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Middlesbrough Council
29 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a winning tender application. Nottinghamshire County Council disclosed 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 Nottinghamshire County Council has breached section 10(1) and failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0311 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View Nottinghamshire County Council
29 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a request to Bradford Metropolitan District Council for information about council tax, councillors and the sale of land. The Council has responded to some parts of the request, but has failed to respond to the remaining parts under the terms of either the Freedom of Information Act or the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached the requirement of section 10(1) of the FOIA and regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Respond in full to the complainant’s information request of 29 June 2016. This response should comply with the terms of the FOIA or EIR, depending on which regime is applicable.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 10
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
24 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the use of off-framework agencies by NHS trusts. NHS Improvement considered this information to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 33(1)(b) and 31(1)(g) for some of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 33 exemption is engaged and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33
View NHS England
24 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department for Transport for information on its role in monitoring Thomas Cook. The DfT refused the request under the exemptions in section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy), section 41 (information provided in confidence), section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that DfT has correctly applied the exemptions in sections 35(1)(a), 41(1), 43(2), 40(2) and 44(1)(a) but that it breached section 10(3) in it handling of the request. The Commissioner’s requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 35; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43; FOI 44
View Department for Transport
24 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for information relating to the wastewater treatment works at Davyhulme. United Utilities refused to comply with the request as it considers it to be manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) EIR. It also applied regulation 12(5)(b) EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation United Utilities voluntarily disclosed some of the requested information to the complainant, this was information that it had also disclosed to the complainant within the context of ongoing legal proceedings. It did however uphold its application of regulation 12(4)(b) and 12(5)(b) EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that United Utilities has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) EIR to the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View United Utilities
24 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint he had made. The Trust failed to respond to this request for information within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner considers that the Trust breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust
24 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the HCPC’s decision that a named healthcare professional had no case to answer following a fitness to practise investigation. The HCPC refused the request under sections 30(2) confidential sources, 31 – law enforcement, 40(2) – third party personal data and 41 – information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HCPC is entitled to withhold the information under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter. Information Tribunal appeal FS50635491 allowed
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Health and Care Professions Council
24 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information used to amend the Children’s Services - Foster Carers Payments policy published in April 2015. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertfordshire County Council has correctly applied the exemption for legal professional privilege at section 42 of the FOIA and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Hertfordshire County Council
24 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning communications Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) had with the NHS Staff Council. Having initially responded to the request, the Trust subsequently categorised it as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request of 28 October 2015 cannot be categorised as vexatious under section 14(1). However, the Commissioner is prepared to accept that, under section 1(1) of the FOIA, the Trust does not hold the information that has been requested. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0312 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14
View Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
24 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about vehicles and households within a particular Nottingham postcode area. Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) released to the complainant information that it holds that falls within the scope of his request. DVLA has disputed that it holds the specific information requested and says that if it were to be found that it does hold the information, it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost exceeds the appropriate limit). The complainant disputes both these points. The Commissioner’s decision is that DVLA does hold the specific information requested but that it is not required to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner considers that DVLA met its obligation under section 16(1) of the FOIA to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require DVLA to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0295 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
24 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to junior doctor contract negotiations. The DoH refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA as it said it would exceed the cost limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH was correct to apply section 12 FOIA in his case. He also considers that it complied with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department of Health and Social Care
23 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Southampton (University) relating to details regarding tenant’s deposits. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University did not deal with the request for information in accordance with section 10 of the FOIA as it failed to provide a response to the request within that statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the University issue a response under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View University of Southampton
23 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (“Defra”) for information relating to staff expenses. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra has correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires Defra to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
22 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cumbria County Council in relation to a report it produced on behalf of Allerdale Borough Council regarding allegations of corruption. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Cumbria County Council does not hold the requested information. She has also decided that the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA was correctly applied. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Cumbria County Council
22 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of the financial model that was used to calculate and provide the figures in a viability assessment produced for the Cressingham Gardens regeneration options. The Council provided some redacted datasheets containing assumptions and appraisal outputs relating to the viability assessment. It stated however that it would be manifestly unreasonable, on the basis of burden, to comply with the request for the financial model itself and therefore regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR applied. The Commissioner has found that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and has decided that in all the circumstances the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in favour of maintaining the exception. She does not therefore require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Lambeth
22 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various information in respect of a specific the planning application or the plot which that application involves. East Cambridgeshire District Council (the council) disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under section 41 of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it was determined that the information was environmental. The council withdrew its reliance on section 41, and additional information was located and disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with regulation 5(1) in providing all the information within the scope of the request, however, in supplying the information outside the required 20 working day time frame, it has failed to comply with regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View East Cambridgeshire District Council
22 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning works undertaken by Norfolk County Council on an area of common land in Roydon, Norfolk. It is the complainant’s opinion that the works were carried out without consent and are therefore illegal. The Council has informed the complainant that it does not hold recorded information in respect of his request: The Council has explained why it disagrees with the complainant’s opinion as to the legality of the works specified in the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Norfolk County Council does not hold recorded information which answers the complainant’s request and therefore it has complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0308 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Norfolk County Council
22 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of various policies operated by Ridley Hall, a theological college. Ridley Hall did not initially respond to the request and subsequently explained that it was not obliged to on the basis that it was not a public authority for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner has determined that Ridley Hall is not subject to FOIA and therefore it did not have a duty to issue a response under the legislation. Accordingly, she does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
22 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to computer virus issues recorded by the IT department at Grimsby Magistrates court within a specified timeframe. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) ultimately neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information citing section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 31(3) FOIA as the basis for not complying with the duty 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/2016/0303 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Ministry of Justice
22 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested consultation responses and other associated information regarding the planning application 108705/FO/2015/C1 at Manchester City Council (the council). The council failed to issue a valid refusal notice. At internal review the council provided some information and arrangements were made to view the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to comply with regulation 14 in failing to issue a valid refusal notice. It also breached regulation 5(2) in providing the requested information outside the required time frame of 20 working days. However, the Commissioner finds that the council has complied with regulation 5(1) as it has provided or made available all information within the scope of the request, and has complied with regulation 9.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 9
View Manchester City Council
22 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Eastbourne Borough Council about a specific Council officer. The Council refused the request under section 14(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 section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Eastbourne Borough Council
21 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a proposed redevelopment. To date TfL has failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Respond to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Transport for London
21 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about Operation Nexus. By the date of this notice, the Home Office has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. She requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
18 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Barnet (“the Council”) relating to the replacement of all pavements in Abbots Gardens. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0284 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Barnet Council
17 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the dates and participants of Childcare Implementation Taskforce meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Work and Pensions wrongly relied on sections 35(1)(a) and (b) to withhold the requested information from the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the withheld information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0304 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Work and Pensions
17 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the Department for Work and Pensions’ Mandatory Reconsiderations process. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Work and Pensions correctly relied on section 12 (costs) to refuse to provide the sought information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department for Work and Pensions