9 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a confidential meeting that took place on 31 August 2015 to discuss the Headteacher of one of the schools within the trust. The trust released a redacted version of the minutes and informed the complainant that it wished to withhold information under section 30(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner considers section 40 of the FOIA should have been applied in this case. She has considered the contents of the withheld information and she considers that section 40 of the FOIA applies. Although the Commissioner requires no further action to be taken, she has noted that the trust breached sections 1, 10 and 17 of the FOIA whilst handling this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
8 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to the expulsion of two Cuban diplomats from the United Kingdom in 1988. The public authority disclosed some of the information within the scope of the request during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold the remaining information in scope on the basis of the exemption at section 23(1) FOIA (information relating to security bodies).
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
8 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for copies of records relating to flights in and out of Diego Garcia in the British Indian Overseas Territory. The FCO refused to disclose the information relying on section 27(1)(a) (international relations) and section 26(1)(b) (defence) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO is entitled to rely on section 27(1)(a) to withhold the requested information and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
8 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for copies of all material received by the public authority from other government departments in response to the call for evidence by the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information in October 2015. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold the requested information on the basis of the exemption at section 35(1)(a) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
8 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to the funding of the charity Keeping Kids Company widely referred to as Kids Company. Some of the information within the scope of the request was revealed to the complainant following the application of section 21(1) FOIA (information accessible to an applicant by other means). The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold the remaining information in scope on the basis of the exemptions at sections 31(1)(g) and 31(2)(a), (b) and (d) FOIA (law enforcement).
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Cabinet Office
8 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Bath (“the University”) relating to the University’s consideration of implementing the Living Wage. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly withheld the requested information under section 36 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
8 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) asking how many Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles were engaged in operations against Daesh in Iraq and Syria and at which bases were they deployed. The MOD withheld the information on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 26(1)(b) (defence) and 27(1)(a) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(a) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0290 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
8 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for the minutes (and related correspondence) of the Cabinet meeting in which the coalition government decided to veto the Commissioner’s decision in 2011 ordering the Department of Health to publish the NHS risk register. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(1)(b) to withhold the information held within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
8 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for the make and model of portable electronic devices such as laptops, tablets mobile phones used by very senior officials including then Prime Minister David Cameron. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information requested on the basis of the exemption at section 24(1) FOIA (national security).
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
7 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Liverpool City Council about legal work undertaken and legal advice sought. 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 incorrectly refused the request under section 14(1). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely upon section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Liverpool City Council
7 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the sale or disposal of land at John William Street, Eccles, Manchester. Salford City Council (‘the Council’) disclosed some information and withheld other information in reliance of the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(e), 12(5)(f), 12(5)(b) and 13(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has appropriately applied regulations 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e) and 13(2) to the information it is withholding. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken. However, the Commissioner finds the Council to be in breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide the requested information within 20 working days, and regulation 14(2) by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13(2); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Salford City Council
7 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the 4 June 2014 independent internal review of the domestic homicide review process of the Home Office Domestic Violence Unit. The Home Office refused the request relying on the section 36(2)(b) FOIA exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 36(2)(b) exemption is engaged but the public interest in disclosing the review outweighed that in maintaining the exemption so that the exemption had therefore been wrongly applied. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the review to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Home Office
3 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding social media analysis. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a substantive response to the complainant under the Act by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
3 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the Home Office’s use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) when investigating its own staff. The Home Office would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding any information, citing the exemptions at sections 31(3) (law enforcement), 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, security bodies) and 24(2)(national security). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to NCND whether it held the requested information by virtue of section 31(3). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 31
View Home Office
3 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Norfolk Constabulary (the “Constabulary”) in connection to a complaint he had raised about alleged electoral malpractice. Having initially advised the complainant that it did not consider his request to be valid under the terms of the FOIA, the Constabulary subsequently refused to confirm or deny holding any information by virtue of section 40(5)(a) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Norfolk Constabulary
3 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to three planning matters. South Bucks District Council (the “Council”) explained what information was available online but argued that it was excepted from its duty to provide the requested information under regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications exception) of the EIR. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) as its basis for withholding the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View South Hams District Council
3 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding the EU referendum. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a substantive response to the complainant under the Act by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
3 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the summonses issued for the non-payment or late payment of council tax by elected members in the last two financial years. Leeds City Council disclosed the names of two councillors who had each received a summons which resulted in a liability order. It withheld some information under section 40(2), and did not consider that the remaining information fell within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council initially failed to comply with section 1 and section 10 as it failed to correctly identify all information falling within the scope of the request. The council has incorrectly applied section 40(2) to all the requested information, with the exception of that relating to one councillor, due to the specific circumstances their debt. The Commissioner also finds that section 44 is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the 5 councillors who fall within the scope of the
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40; FOI 44
View Leeds City Council
3 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the non-payment or late payment of council tax by elected members in the last two financial years. Craven District Council (the council) confirmed that one elected member had received a final notice for non-payment and a liability order was obtained in respect of another. At review stage, the council disclosed the amounts of arrears, but withheld the names of the elected officials under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has incorrectly withheld the names of the elected officials under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Craven District Council
3 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Trident referrals from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to confirm or deny whether they held information within the scope of this request and cited the exemptions provided by sections 23(5) (information relating to, or supplied by, security bodies), 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5) and 24(2) were cited correctly so the MPS was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
3 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of the viability assessment prepared in relation to the regeneration options considered for the Silchester Estate. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (the Council) confirmed that it held the requested information and provided some general clarification with regard to the assumptions that had been used for the purposes of the viability calculations. The Council considered however that under the ‘confidentiality of commercial or industrial information’ (regulation 12(5)(e)) exception to disclosure in the EIR it was not obliged to provide a copy of the report. The Commissioner has found that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR is engaged but that on balance the public interest favours disclosure. She therefore requires the Council to release a copy of the requested information to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
3 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a range of information taken from voluntary reports of adverse incidents involving medical devices. The MHRA agreed to disclose some information but considered that model, manufacturer, catalogue, serial and batch numbers, and date of incidences of adverse incidents was exempt on the basis of section 41, 43 and 44 of the FOIA. In addition to this, the MHRA also considered that section 43 applied to the request for reference numbers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has correctly withheld the information request at parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the request on the basis of section 44. However, she does not consider that the MHRA has sufficiently demonstrated that section 43 is engaged in relation to the information requested at part 16 of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information requested at part 16 of the request – MHRA reference numbers for all voluntary reports of adverse incidents received since
Exemptions cited: FOI 43; FOI 44
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
3 Nov 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the viability of a development at Wolsey Grange. Babergh District Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exceptions for commercial confidentiality and the interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(e) and regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that Babergh District Council failed to complete an internal review in time and breached regulation 11(4) and, failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) and regulation 12(5)(f) are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Babergh District Council
3 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information following a fatal fire at a specified residential address in May 2002. Staffordshire Police confirmed it held some of the requested information but refused to disclose it under sections 30(1)(a) (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities), section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement) and section 38(1) (health and safety). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 38 is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining it; he has not therefore gone on to consider sections 30 or 31. Staffordshire Police is not required to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Staffordshire Police
2 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report of an investigation conducted into matters he had raised under Southern Regional College’s whistleblowing policy. The College refused the request in reliance on the exemptions at section 40(1) and section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College was entitled to refuse the request. No remedial steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0294 refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
1 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between David Cameron MP and the Attorney General about one of David Cameron’s constituents. The CPS disclosed some of the information and applied section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA to the rest. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service has applied section 40(2) of the FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner does not require the Crown Prosecution Service to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0264 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
1 Nov 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning applications made to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) by Mr David Hartnett and Mr Rupert Harrison. ACOBA withheld the requested information under Sections 36(2)(b) and (c) and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under Section 36 of the FOIA and that the balance of the public interest supports maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
1 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department of Health for a copy of the official ministerial diary of the Secretary of State Jeremy Hunt. The DoH refused the request under the exemption in section 35(1)(d) (operation of ministerial private office). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(d) is engaged but the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. Whilst not relied upon by the DoH, the Commissioner also found that some of the information should be redacted under the section 40(2) exemption (personal information). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The DoH shall disclose the requested information to the complainant but may redact personal data under section 40(2) as described in paragraphs 39 and 40 below. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0282 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 40
View Department of Health and Social Care
1 Nov 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Korea Post-Armistice Military Medals Review. The Cabinet Office argued that it did not hold some of the information within the scope of his requests for the purposes of FOIA. As regards the information it did hold, it argued that this was exempt under section 35 (formulation/development of government policy) and section 37 (honours information). It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does not hold much of the requested information for the purposes of FOIA. Some of the information it does hold has been correctly withheld under section 37(1)(b). This is detailed in a confidential annex to this Notice. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The confidential annex to this notice sets out which information cannot be withheld under section 35(1)(a) nor under section 37(1)(b). The Cabinet Office must disclos
Exemptions cited: FOI 3; FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
31 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of all correspondence between Wales Office Ministers and the Welsh Government Minister for Health and Social Care and Deputy Minister for Health since January 2015. Whilst the Wales Office disclosed some information, it refused other items by virtue of section 35 of the FOIA on the basis that disclosure would be likely to prejudice the formulation of government policy. Following the Commissioner’s investigation, the Wales Office subsequently changed its stance to rely on section 28 of the FOIA as it considered that disclosure would be likely to prejudice the relations between the UK government and the Welsh Assembly Government. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Wales Office has correctly relied on section 28 in respect of the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 28
View Wales Office
31 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various items of information regarding the resurfacing of the A40 from Raglan to Abergavenny. The Welsh Assembly Government confirmed that it had no plans to undertake carriageway resurfacing work on that particular section of the A40, adding that as it has no plans, it does not hold relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Assembly Government has complied with its obligations under regulation 5 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Welsh Government
31 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the agreement with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (‘PWC’) in relation to the Risk and Reward exercise. Ceredigion County Council (‘the Council’) provided some information but withheld other information under section 43(2) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council agreed to disclose the previously withheld information. In failing to comply with section 1 within twenty working days the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. However, as the Council has now provided the information in question the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ceredigion County Council
31 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an unredacted copy of Appendix 4 of Derby City Council’s Risk and Control Register for its Pay and Review Project. The Council provided the complainant with a redacted copy of this document. The redactions where made in reliance on section 40(2) – in respect of the names of personnel involved in the project, and on section 36(2)(c), in respect of three identified risks and their controls. The Commissioner’s decision is that Derby City Council has correctly applied sections 40(2) and 36(2)(c) to the information it is withholding.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Derby City Council
31 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council about the departure of the Council’s former Chief Executive. The Council withheld some of the information under the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the exemption provided by section 40(2). However the Council breached section 17(1) by failing to issue its refusal notice within the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Bolton Council
31 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Chalgrave Parish Council about work undertaken on a pond site. In response the Council disclosed information; however this was outside of the 20 working days specified by regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
27 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested addresses for a gambling operator obtained by the Gambling Commission as part of its licencing application process. The Gambling Commission refused to provide this on the basis of section 31(1)(g) in conjunction with 31(2)(d). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Gambling Commission
25 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of an agreement between East Devon District Council and a developer, Pegasus Life, in relation to a site at Knowle. East Devon District Council refused the request, citing section 43(2) of the FOIA and regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Devon District Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the requested information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0280 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View East Devon District Council
25 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from St Mary’s University (“the University”) relating to the salaries of the English department for the period September 1970 – August 1980. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the University to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
25 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made nine requests for information to Cheshire West and Chester Council (the council) relating to Mill View Primary School as part of a dispute which has been ongoing since July 2014. The council has refused these requests under regulation 12(4)(b) as it considers them to be manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the requests.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
25 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested documents relating to the councils plan to build new offices for itself. Various documents were requested. The council disclosed some however other documents were withheld under Regulation 12(5)(e). The council argues that these contain the price bid for the land where the current council offices are situated, and estimated costs which the council has drawn together for the development of its new offices. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(e) to the costs assumptions and under the circumstances of the case the public interest rests in maintaining the exception in this case. He has however decided that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(e) to the conditional price agreed with the developer, Pegasus, for the land. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the relevant documents, excluding sections which pr
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View East Devon District Council
25 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding the decision to award the contract for the development of the Knowle site in Sidmouth to PegasusLife. In particular he requested information about the bidding process. East Devon District Council (the council) provided the majority of the requested information but withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) information regarding minutes of meetings and correspondence on the subject the decision to award the contract to PegasusLife. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0279 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View East Devon District Council
25 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a list of all current team email addresses and the associated team title and physical location of the team to which each email address belongs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12 of the FOIA. She also finds that DWP failed to provide sufficient advice and assistance as required by section 16 of the FOIA. However she does not require any remedial steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0262 disposed of by consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
25 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust for copies of competency to practice declarations of staff who were authorised to carry out venesection procedures. The Trust refused the request under the section 40(2) exemption on the grounds that the information was personal data and disclosure would contravene the first data protection principle. The Commissioner has decided that the section 40(2) exemption was correctly applied and she requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Peterborough and Stamford NHS Trust
25 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the minutes of the Derby City Council’s Homeless Liaison Forum, which took place after its meeting on 30 June 2015. The Council disclosed the minutes of the 6 October 2015 meeting, but redacted the names of the persons who were in attendance or who gave their apologies. The Council’s redactions were made in reliance on section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Derby City Council is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the names redacted from the disclosed minutes.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Derby City Council
25 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Department for Education a copy of the latest version of the Small Schools Task Force’s report into Universal Infant Free School Meals in small schools. The Department for Education withheld the report under section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education has not successfully engaged section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the latest version of the Small Schools Task Force report into Universal Infant Free School Meals in small schools.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
24 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the identity of a Council employee following an allegation of misconduct. Under section 40(5) of the FOIA the General Medical Council (GMC) neither confirms nor denies that it holds this information, which it says would be the personal data of the requester and third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC is correct to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information, and that the exemption under section 40(5) is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the GMC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC
24 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails between an individual councillor and Labour Group members of City of York Council (‘the Council’), sent of a specific day. The Council says that it does not hold this information for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is correct and that it does not hold the requested information, under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View York City Council
24 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for information to the Department for Transport (DfT) for copies of assessment reports produced by the Major Projects Authority on HS2. 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(4)(d) exception is not engaged; regulation 12(5)(d) is engaged and regulation 12(4)(e) applies to only some of the withheld information. The Comm
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(d)
View Department for Transport
24 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (the “Council”) regarding the measurement and filling in of a hole in a pavement which he considered to be a trip hazard. The Council responded to the request and to further follow-up requests made by the complainant but he remained dissatisfied. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the Council reviewed this matter and located two further photographs and further detail concerning the measurement of the hole which had not been sent to the complainant. These have now been provided to him. The Council has confirmed to the Commissioner that no further information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that in responding to the initial request in 21 working days and in failing to provide all the information it held, the Council is in breach of regulation 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR. In failing to provide the complainant with a refusal notice under the EIR with respect to information the Council has confirm
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(1)(2); EIR 5(1)(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
24 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the qualifications of a named doctor. The General Medical Council (GMC) withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC has correctly applied this exemption and does not need to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC