17 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Her Majesty’s Treasury (the Treasury) about proposed Mersey Tunnel toll changes. The Treasury refused the request relying on section 12 – the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Treasury is entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse the request. The Treasury’s response to the request was issued outside the statutory timeframe of 20 working days and accordingly the Treasury has breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0286 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
View HM Treasury
17 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on how the transition costs for junior doctors’ contracts were being funded. The Department of Health (DH) refused to provide the information under section 35(1)(a) on the basis that it related to the formulation or development of government policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DH is entitled to rely on section 35 to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
17 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about key properties in a particular postcode. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) has relied on FOIA section 44(1)(a) – prohibitions on disclosure, to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the VOA has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) to the request and she does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0296 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Valuation Office Agency
17 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a consultation. The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) considered the request to be manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and refused to comply with it. NIC subsequently published the requested information and advised the complainant where he can access it. The Commissioner’s decision is that NIC: met its obligations under regulation 4(1) to disseminate environmental information; breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR because it did not provide a response to the request within 20 working days; met its obligations under regulation 11 with regard to the review of its response to the request; and was correct to apply regulation 12(4)(b) to the request. The Commissioner does not require NIC to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0310 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 4; EIR 5(2)
View National Infrastructure Commission
17 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information to support a statement from the Office of the then Prime Minister, made in September 2015 that, in the previous year, at least 70 events featuring hate speakers had been held on university campuses. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has correctly applied the section 31(1), 23(5) and 24(2) FOIA exemptions to withhold parts of the requested information and to neither confirm nor deny holding other parts of the requested information. She did not proceed to consider application of the section 38 and 40 FOIA exemptions. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 31
View Home Office
16 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information held in respect of a consultation that the authority had undertaken in relation to the introduction of legislation aimed at arrangements which allowed some employees to give up some of their taxable salary in return for tax free expenses. In the government’s view, such arrangements were not within the spirit of the relevant rules and were providing a competitive advantage for employers by reducing their tax and national insurance liability. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was not entitled to withhold all of the information held within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemption contained at section 35(1) FOIA. She also concluded the public authority was entitled to withhold some of the information in scope on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 31(1)(1)(d) and 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner therefore ordered the public authority to disclose all of the information in s
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 35; FOI 40
16 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about staff dismissals to Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust provided some information, cited sections 40 and 22 to part of the request and stated that to try and comply with the remainder of the request would exceed the appropriate limit in costs set by section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust correctly applied section 12 and found that there is no breach of section 16.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust
16 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the DH’s Private Finance Unit (PFU), including diary entries of its staff, minutes of meetings and correspondence between its staff and various other parties. Under section 11 he expressed a preference to have the information communicated in a particular format. The DH advised the complainant that the PFU unit no longer existed but ultimately identified two individuals who it said most closely fulfilled the roles referred to in the request and responded to the request on that basis. The DH did not provide the diaries, it said that it did not hold any relevant minutes and although it provided some email correspondence, it redacted information from those emails under section 40(2) – personal information and section 43(2) - commercial interests. At the internal review stage the DH applied section 12 to refuse the request in its entirety and during the Commissioner’s investigation it also applied section 14(1) on the basis that the requ
Exemptions cited: FOI 11; FOI 12; FOI 14; FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Department of Health and Social Care
16 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of referrals in respect of anti-fracking activism that Lancashire Constabulary has made to the government counter terrorism programme, Channel. Lancashire Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny holding information, citing sections 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 24(2) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0301 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Lancashire Constabulary
16 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (the Council) requesting information relating to two roads in the Council’s borough. The Council aggregated the requests and cited section 12 of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 12 of the FOIA where the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. However, the Commissioner has also decided that the Council did not provide adequate advice and assistance under section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance with regard to the requested information that can be provided, to enable an appropriately refined request to be made if necessary.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Redcar and Cleveland Council
16 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to advice issued by the GMC to doctors on 5/9/16 regarding taking strike action. The GMC has failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner considers that the GMC 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 GMC
16 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to information withheld in response to a previous request (NHS England reference number FOI010698). NHS England has failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner considers that NHS England 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 NHS England
16 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of referrals in respect of anti-fracking activism that Greater Manchester Police (‘GMP’) has made to the government counter terrorism programme, Channel. GMP would neither confirm nor deny holding information, citing sections 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 24(2) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0297 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Greater Manchester Police
16 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Holep operations. The Trust has failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner considers that the Trust breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
15 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested minutes from the Corporate Human Resources Committee of Sunderland City Council (the Council) in relation to the recent departure of its former Chief Executive – Dr David Smith. The Council refused the request under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as the information was third party personal data and disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to refuse the request under section 40(2) of the Act.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Sunderland City Council
15 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding downloading pornography onto laptops used by councillors. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kettering Borough Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
15 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of referrals in respect of anti-fracking activism that Cumbria Constabulary has made to the government counter terrorism programme, Channel. Cumbria Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny holding information, citing sections 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 24(2) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0299 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Cumbria Constabulary
15 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of referrals in respect of anti-fracking activism that Merseyside Police has made to the government counter terrorism programme, Channel. Merseyside Police would neither confirm nor deny holding information, citing sections 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 24(2) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0300 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Merseyside Police
15 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about legal aid costs relating to defendants in a high profile murder trial. The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) would neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information, citing the exclusion from that obligation at section 40(5) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 40(5) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
15 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a number of requests to the Cabinet Office about contracts it had entered into with Behavioural Insights Team (BIT). The complainant was dissatisfied with the Cabinet Office’s refusal to disclose the maximum day rates it would pay BIT staff. The Commissioner has concluded that this information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2). The complainant also asked to know the number of BIT staff who were provided with the passes to access the Cabinet Office premises. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information on the basis of sections 31(3) and 38(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that neither of these two exemptions are engaged.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 38; FOI 43
View Cabinet Office
15 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of referrals in respect of anti-fracking activism that Cheshire Constabulary has made to the government counter terrorism programme, Channel. Cheshire Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny holding information, citing sections 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 24(2) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0298 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Cheshire Constabulary
15 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the offence of using ‘0808’ numbers at a named prison. Having initially confirmed there were no such offences during the specified time period, the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) advised, following an internal review, that there had been ten instances. However, it applied section 40(2), personal information, to those found guilty in the associated adjudications, on the basis that revealing any numbers less than five could lead to individuals being identified. The Commissioner has decided that the MOJ should have instead relied on the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision in section 40 of FOIA in response to this request. The reasons for this are set out in this notice. Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is that under FOIA, the MOJ was not obliged to confirm whether or not it held the requested information on the basis of section 40(5)(a). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. However, the MOJ has bre
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
15 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information about any meetings and correspondence between the British High Commission in Nigeria and representatives of various organisations. The FCO disclosed the information it held which fell within the scope of the request but redacted certain parts of the information on the basis of sections 43(2) (commercial interests) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the FCO is entitled to rely on these exemptions, with the only exception being the name of particular third party which the Commissioner has concluded is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a further copy of the requested information this time with the name of the third party identified in the confidential annex to this notice unredacted.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
15 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information about the visits of delegations from foreign nations who were either guests of the UK Government or on a State visit. The FCO provided the requested information with the exception of the names of the hotels used by each of the delegations which was withheld on the basis of sections 24(1) (national security) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 24(1) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
14 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made requests for information relating to vexatious requests. The National Archives (TNA) refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied the vexatious provision at section 14(1) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View The National Archives
14 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested email correspondence to and from the Project Director of its transport policy regarding the delivery of a road scheme for a specific section of the M4 motorway. It also contained a request for all correspondence between the Minister for Economy, Science and Transport and the same Project Director for a specified period in 2015. The Welsh Assembly Government refused to comply with the request, relying on section 12(1) of the FOIA on the basis that the compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Assembly Government has complied with its obligations under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Mae’r achwynydd wedi gofyn am ohebiaeth ebost yn ôl ac ymlaen at Gyfarwyddwr Prosiect polisi trafnidiaeth yn
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Welsh Government
10 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on an investigation of a complaint. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it did not provide a response to the request within 20 working days. NHS England has now responded and the Commissioner does not require it to take any further steps. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it did not provide a response to the request within 20 working days. NHS England has now responded and the Commissioner does not require it to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
10 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about investigations into alleged or suspected sexual offences at a named immigration centre. By the date of this notice, the Home Office has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. She requires the MOJ to respond to the request in accordance with the obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
10 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about climate change meetings. 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 did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
10 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the outcome of complaints against bus drivers. Transport for London confirmed that they did not hold any information. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require TfL to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Transport for London
10 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the kidnapping and murder of British journalist and United Nations aid worker, Alec Collett in Lebanon in 1985.The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exclusions contained in sections 23(5) and 24(2) FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds any information within the scope of the request which would be exempt on the basis of sections 23(1) and 24(1) FOIA (Information relating to security bodies and National Security). The Commissioner has however also concluded that the public authority was not entitled to withhold information within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemptions contained in sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) FOIA (International relations).
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
10 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the program "Two Culture Clash" that was broadcast in 2004. 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
10 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the personnel file of a named police officer. South Yorkshire Police withheld the information, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Yorkshire Police has applied section 40(2) of the FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner does not require South Yorkshire Police to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0277 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/2764/2016 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View South Yorkshire Police
10 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Trust for the full staff rota for the doctors and nurses of all levels and consultants on ward 21 for the night shift on particular dates. The Trust provided some information, it failed to provide some information which is held but in relation to which it has not applied exemptions and it has refused to disclose some information under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has not provided all of the information it holds relevant to the scope of this request and has incorrectly applied section 40(2) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide all information held relevant to the scope of this request, including the names of all doctors, nurses and consultants on the rotas along with start and finish times for the night shift of Thursday 15 October 2016 and the day shift of Friday 16 October 2015.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
10 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Post Office Ltd for details of the ‘complex issues’ which it said had prevented it from responding to a separate request the complainant had made under the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations. The Post Office failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Post Office has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Post Office provided a response to the complainant and therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Post Office
10 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information connected to his own trial. The Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding this information citing section 40(5)(a) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5)(a) is engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
10 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an alleged complaint made by a third party from Hertfordshire Constabulary (“the Constabulary”). The Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding the requested information and cited sections 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5)(b)(i) (personal information) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so; during the Commissioner’s investigation this was revised to 40(5)(b)(i) only. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5)(b)(i) is engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Hertfordshire Constabulary
10 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the names and addresses of agents. The Post Office refused to provide the requested 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 Post Office has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0288 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Post Office
10 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) about pilot incidents and detailed reasons for failed medical checks. The CAA refused to provide the requested information, relying on sections 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) and 12 (exceeding the appropriate cost limit) of the FOIA to do so. In particular the CAA cited the statutory prohibition on disclosure created by European Regulation (EU) No. 376/2014. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CAA has correctly applied sections 44 and 12 and the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 44
View Civil Aviation Authority
10 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Cumbria County Council report into Allerdale and the 2012 allegations of corruption and related information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Allerdale Borough Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
10 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes of any meetings held between July and August 2015 between specific Ministers and officials at the Department of Health (DoH) and representatives of NHS employers and/or the BMA. The DoH identified information within the scope of the request but considered it exempt on the basis of section 35(1)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 35(1)(a) exemption is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She does not require the DoH to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
10 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information held in respect of a consultation that the authority had undertaken in relation to the introduction of legislation aimed at arrangements which allowed some employees to give up some of their taxable salary in return for tax free expenses. In the government’s view, such arrangements were not within the spirit of the relevant rules and were providing a competitive advantage for employers by reducing their tax and national insurance liability. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was not entitled to withhold all of the information held within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemption contained at section 35(1) FOIA. She also concluded the public authority was entitled to withhold some of the information in scope on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 31(1)(1)(d) and 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner therefore ordered the public authority to disclose all of the information in s
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 35; FOI 40
10 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a list of film and television projects the Home Office had communicated with during the period 2013 to 2015. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemptions provided by the following sections of the FOIA: 24(2) (national security), 38(2) (health and safety), 43(3) (prejudice to commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that these exemptions are not engaged and the Home Office is now required to issue a fresh response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 38; FOI 43
View Home Office
10 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a four part request, the complainant has requested information about an instance of whistleblowing in 2012. The British Broadcasting Corporation (‘the BBC’) says it does not hold information within the scope of one part and cannot categorially verify that it holds information within the scope of one other part. The BBC says that, under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA, it not obliged to confirm or deny that it holds the information requested in the remaining two parts because do to do so would reveal the personal data of a third person. The Commissioner’s decision is that: On the balance of probabilities, the BBC does not hold information that falls within the scope of parts 1 and 4 of the request. Under section 40(5)(b)(i), the BBC is correct to neither confirm nor deny it holds the information requested at parts 2 and 3 of the request as to do so would release the personal data of a third person. The Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any steps. This decision notice is c
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View BBC
10 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to North East London NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for information about BCG injections administered by the Trust. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust 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 North East London NHS Foundation Trust
10 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to repossession claims begun by a named mortgage company. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to provide the requested information citing section 32 of the FOIA (court records). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 32(1)(c)(i) and (ii) to withhold the requested information. She does not require the MoJ to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
10 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a company subcontracted by another company contracted by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). PSNI provided some information and said that it did not hold other information. PSNI withheld further information under section 43(2) and section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was entitled to rely on section 43(2) in respect of the withheld information. The Commissioner is further satisfied that PSNI correctly denied that it held some of the requested information. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0292 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
9 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Sheffield City Council (the “Council”) relating to a Town and Country Planning Act (“TCPA”) section 106 agreement. The Council, handling this as an FOIA request, provided some information but withheld the remainder citing the exemptions at FOIA section 43 (commercial interests) and FOIA section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. It also said that it did not hold the name of the developer relating to this TCPA section 106 agreement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have treated this matter as an EIR request but that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) and regulation 13 as its basis for not disclosing the information within the scope of the request which remains withheld. She is also satisfied that the Council does not hold the name of the developer in question. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0289 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13
View Sheffield City Council
9 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence between the Prince of Wales and Tony Blair. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 37(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it considered the information – if held – would relate to communications with the heir to the throne. The Commissioner considers that the information is environmental and so should be considered under the EIR. The Cabinet Office provided submissions to the Commissioner to refuse the request under regulation 13(5), to neither confirm nor deny whether any relevant personal data was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has not applied regulation 13(5) correctly. He also finds that the Cabinet Office breached regulation 14(2) because it did not issue its initial response within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to confirm or deny what information is held in relation to the complainant’s request under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5); EIR 14(2)(1); FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
9 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence between the Prince of Wales (the Prince) and Tony Blair. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether relevant information relevant to the request was held under section 37(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) because if any information was held it would relate to relate to communications with the heir to the Throne as per section 37(1)(aa). It also refused to confirm or deny whether any personal data in relation to environmental information was held under regulation 13(5)(a) of the EIR. For any information that is not environmental as per the EIR, the Commissioner considers that section the Cabinet Office is entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether information is held under section 37(2). He also finds that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) of the Act as it did not issue its refusal notice to the complainant within 20 working days following receipt of the request. For any information that is environmental as
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(2)(1); FOI 17; FOI 37
View Cabinet Office