24 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (The “DFE”) relating to details of pre – 2010 academy pledges which had not been fulfilled. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DFE did not deal with the request for information in accordance with section 10 of the FOIA in the following way: It failed to provide a response to the request within that statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Education
24 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
As part of a wider request concerning sewage pumping stations, the complainant has requested information about reported sewage overflows from a particular overflow site – a road in Dereham. Anglian Water disclosed some information. The complainant considers that Anglian Water holds further relevant information that it has not disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that Anglian Water has disclosed all the relevant information that it holds, and has met its obligation under regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that Anglian Water breached regulation 5(2), however, because it did not respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require Anglian Water to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Anglian Water
20 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the non-payment of council tax by councillors at Sheffield City Council (the council). The council confirmed that it held some of the requested information, but stated that it was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2). With regard to the remaining information, the council stated that even to search for it would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA). Therefore it has not confirmed what, if any, further information it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to comply with section 1(1) in failing to confirm whether or not it held any information on the late payment of council tax information aside from those councillors who were ineligible to vote in the budget setting meetings by virtue of section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The Commissioner also finds that the council was incorrect to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the information it had identified within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Sheffield City Council
20 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of land owned, including its use, by the London Borough of Lewisham (the Council). The Council identified a Non-Core Housing Asset Register as falling within the scope of the request but considered it was not obliged to provide this record under the ‘law enforcement’ (section 31(1)(a)) and ‘health and safety’ (sections 38(1)(a) and (b)) exemptions to disclosure in FOIA. The Commissioner has found that the exemptions cited by the Council are not engaged. She therefore requires the Council to disclose the Asset Register to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 38
View Lewisham Council
20 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to parking tickets given to emergency services vehicles. Maidstone Borough Council (the council) refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA as it considered for it to provide the information would exceed the appropriate cost limits. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is able to rely on section 12 of the FOIA o refuse the request. He is also satisfied that it has provided adequate advice and assistance as per section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Maidstone Borough Council
20 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to caravan park sites. Hastings Borough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for prejudice to commercial interests, section 43(2) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation Hastings Borough Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld information under the exception for confidentiality of commercial information, regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that Hastings Borough Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1) and failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
20 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to a discussion document. Market Drayton Town Council (the council) initially responded that no information was held. Following an internal review it provided two emails. The complainant was not satisfied with the time it took the council to provide this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it provided the information it held outside the required 10 working day timeframe. As the information has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
20 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (DfE) relating to the proposal of the Weald of Kent Grammar School (Weald of Kent) for the development of an annexe in Sevenoaks. The complaint to the Commissioner concerns the DfE’s refusal to comply with two requests. The Commissioner has initially had to decide how the requests under consideration should be interpreted and has found that they only cover the business information submitted to the DfE by the Weald of Kent. The DfE considered that this fell within the ‘prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs’ exemption to disclosure in section 36(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner has determined the exemption is engaged but concluded that on balance the public interest favours disclosure. She therefore requires the DfE to disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
20 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding details of financial support provided to lawyers representing the families of victims of the Hillsborough disaster from the Home Office. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. 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 10
View Home Office
20 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested recorded information from Cheshire West and Chester Council. The requested information concerns an application to build houses on land off School Bank, Norley, Cheshire, under planning reference 14/00629/OUT. The Council has refused to disclose some of the recorded information it holds in reliance on Regulations 12(4)(e) – internal communications, 12(5)(b) – prejudice to the course of justice and 12(4)(d) – where the information is in the course of completion. The withheld information is not routinely published by the Council on its planning portal. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied Regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b) and 12(4)(d) to the information it has not published on its planning portal. The Council is therefore entitled to withhold that information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
19 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a workshop organised by the ICO to gather views on the implications of the new EU directive on data protection. The ICO provided some information and denied holding other information. Although it provided a list of the organisations invited to send a representative, the ICO withheld the actual names of those invited to attend under regulation 40(2) – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly withheld the names of those invited under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Information Commissioner
19 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to cash deposits made by Lycamobile. Ultimately the Post Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, relying on sections 41(2) breach of confidence and section 43(3) –prejudice to commercial interests, as its grounds for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Post Office is entitled to refuse to confirm whether the information is held under section 43(3). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Post Office
19 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the staff turnover in a particular department of Merseyside Police over eight years. Merseyside Police refused to comply with the request on the grounds that doing so would exceed the appropriate limit established under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Merseyside Police it is entitled to rely on section 12(1). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Merseyside Police
19 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the guidance used by the staff of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) when dealing with complaints about the miss-selling of Payment Protection Insurance (PPI). The FOS provided some of the requested information but withheld other information under the exemptions provided by section 40(2) – third party personal data and section 43 – prejudice to commercial interests. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the FOS also applied section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that FOS is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) to withhold the disputed information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0274 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
19 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a draft letter dated 25 October 2012 and read out by her at a meeting of Trefeglwys Community Council on the same date. The Council responded informing the complainant that it does not hold a copy of the draft letter. The Commissioner’s decision is that Trefeglwys Community Council does not hold the requested information and has therefore complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
19 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a particular planning application and information about the installation of a mirror on a bridge structure. The Council applied regulation 6(1)(b) to information about the planning application and stated it did not hold any information about the mirror in question. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly confirmed that information about the mirror in question is not held and therefore it complied with regulation 5 of the EIR. However, the Council failed to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days and breached regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner also finds that the Council did not breach regulation 11(4) of the EIR in failing to conduct an internal review within the required timescales. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0258 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 14; EIR 5
View Caerphilly County Borough Council
19 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from London Borough of Lambeth (the ‘Council’) information relating to a named property during a specific time period. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information in question is environmental for the purposes of the EIR and that the Council had correctly applied regulation 13(5) of the EIR to the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5)
View London Borough of Lambeth
18 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to specific private equity funds invested in by the West Yorkshire Pension Fund. The Commissioner’s decision is that the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council has incorrectly applied both the exemption where disclosure would prejudice commercial interests at section 43(2) of the FOIA and the exemption for information provided in confidence at section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43(2)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
18 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Eden District Council about a complaint that they have made. The Council disclosed some information under the terms of the Data Protection Act and withheld some under the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. The complainant subsequently contested the Council’s application of this exemption, and whether further information was held which should be disclosed under the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the exemption provided by section 40(2), and that no further information is likely to be held which should be disclosed under the FOIA. However in failing to issue a response within the time for compliance, the Council breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
18 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested legal advice relating to planning matters at Hayton Woods. Cumbria County Council withheld the information under the exception for adverse affect to the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that Cumbria County Council failed to issue a refusal notice in time and breached regulation 14(2) and correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0256 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14
View Cumbria County Council
18 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Bury Metropolitan Borough Council about a named individual who is a former councillor. The Council refused to confirm or deny that it held relevant information under the exemptions provided by section 40(5) and section 41(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. The complainant subsequently contested the Council’s application of these exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the exemption provided by section 40(5)(b)(i). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Bury Council
18 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on equal opportunities claims against the council over previous years. The council withheld the information and applied the exemption in section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that council was correct to apply Regulation 36(2)(c) however the public interest in the disclosure of the information outweighs the public interest in the exemption being maintained. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation, to disclose the requested information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0275 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Birmingham City Council
18 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding Liverpool City Council’s Operator Licensing Conditions Consultation relating to Private Hire and/or Uber’s operations. The Commissioner’s decision is that Liverpool City 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 Liverpool City Council did not provide adequate advice and assistance under section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to 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 to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Liverpool City Council
17 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on car parking funds. The Airedale NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) provided some information and confirmed that they did not hold any further information. The complainant considered that more information must be held. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Airedale NHS Foundation Trust
17 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a number of requests for information to Warwickshire Police in which she requested information relating to internal / external investigations and misconduct / gross misconduct notices and a named police operation. Warwickshire Police relied on the section 14(1) exemption of the FOIA in refusing the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that Warwickshire Police applied the section 14(1) FOIA exemption to these requests correctly. However she also found that Warwickshire Police had delayed its initial response to the requests for too long and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Warwickshire Police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View West Mercia Police
17 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on penalty charges issued at the Dartford Crossing, including breakdowns by country and figures on non-compliance. Highways England provided some of the information but withheld that which broke down non-compliance by country and individual vehicle on the basis of section 36(2)(c) and 31(1)(d) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Highways England has correctly applied section 36(2)(c) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View National Highways
17 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the cost of tickets and entries to the BAFTA television awards. 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. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
17 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a sample of radar data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the Ministry of Defence (the MoD) or held on its behalf by another person for the purposes of FOIA by virtue of section 3(2)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Ministry of Defence
17 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Khalsa Primary School (“the School”) relating to teacher’s pay progression. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has breached section 10 of the FOIA as it has failed to respond to the request for information. The Commissioner requires the School to respond to the request for information dated 21 September 2015.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View HURST PRIMARY SCHOOL
17 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for documents and correspondence relating to the award of honours to the late British artist David Bowie by Her Majesty The Queen. The public authority disclosed most of the information in scope at the time of the request and withheld a small amount of information on the basis of the exemptions at sections 37(1)(b) (the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity), 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 37(1)(b) to withhold all of the remaining information that has not been disclosed to the complainant. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
17 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Wood End Academy (“the School”) relating to teacher’s pay progression. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has breached section 10 of the FOIA as it has failed to respond to the request for information. The Commissioner requires the School to respond to the request for information dated 21 September 2015. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0252 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View WOOD END ACADEMY
17 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from West Mercia Police relating to the number of misconduct / gross misconduct notices issued to its officers and the number of external police forces West Mercia Police was investigating. The police relied on the section 14(1) exemption of the FOIA in refusing the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Mercia Police applied the section 14(1) exemption to this request correctly. However she also found that West Mercia Police had delayed its initial response to the request for too long and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require West Mercia Police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View West Mercia Police
17 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for documents and correspondence relating to the award of honours to British artists Ronnie Barker, Ronnie Corbett and actress Anna Massey, by Her Majesty The Queen. The public authority withheld the information in scope on the basis of the exemptions at sections 37(1)(b) (the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity), 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 37(1)(b) to withhold all of the information in scope. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
13 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for files from the Prime Minister’s Office in relation to the UK Government’s relations with Libya. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA on the basis that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the Cabinet Office was entitled to refuse it under section 14(1). No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/2782/2017 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cabinet Office
13 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for copies of correspondence between the Prime Minister’s office and senior figures in the Church of England regarding changes to the process of making ecclesiastical appointments. The Commissioner’s decision is 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 35(1)(a) FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0270 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Cabinet Office
13 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for information to Warwickshire County Council for GIS data on its public Rights of Way Network. The Council refused the request under the exception in regulation 12(4)(d) (material still in the course of completion etc). The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) does apply to the requested information but that the public interest in maintaining the exception does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: The Council shall disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Warwickshire County Council
13 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Salford City Council (the Council) relating to a regeneration development. The Council refused one part of the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR because it was manifestly unreasonable, and the other part under regulation 12(5)(e) because it disclosure would have an adverse effect on confidentiality of commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) has been cited correctly, and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, the Commissioner considers that the Council has not met its obligations under regulation 9(2) in providing sufficient advice and assistance to the complainant. She also finds that regulation 12(5)(e) does not apply to the second part of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide assistance to the complainant on how to reduce the scope of his request so that it is no longer manifestly unreasonable. She also requires the
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 9(2)
View Salford City Council
13 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding an online petition and a response to a previous request for information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Clowne and Barlborough Burial Committee does not hold the requested information. She does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
13 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant was selected for redundancy by the Open University (the OU) and subsequently, on 10 September 2015, requested information concerning its redundancy selection criteria, the process followed and guidance documents. The OU responded that it would treat her request as a basis for her appeal against the decision. The OU considered the complainant’s appeal but did not provide all the information requested. The complainant has argued that the OU should have handled her information request as an FOIA request and that its response to a further FOIA request was late. The complainant has also argued that she has still not received all the information requested. In failing to respond to that part of the request of 10 September 2015 which fell under the FOIA, the Commissioner finds the OU to be in breach of section 1(a) and (b) and section 10 of the FOIA. In failing to provide a response to a further FOIA request within 20 working days, the Commissioner finds the OU to be in breach
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
11 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning Haroon Bhatti, a five year old boy who was murdered by his father in 2012. Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’) says it holds the requested information but that it holds it on behalf of Wakefield District Safeguarding Children Board (WDSCB). It says that since WDSCB is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA, the Council cannot be said to hold the information under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information for the purposes of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
11 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a planning matter concerning Roundhouse Farm. Wiltshire Council (‘the Council’) released some information and withheld other information that it said was excepted from disclosure. The complainant considers that the Council holds further relevant information that it has not disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further information and has complied with its obligation at regulation 5(1) (duty to make environmental information available on request). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Wiltshire Council
11 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A previous decision notice was issued that found Birmingham City Council (the council) would hold times recorded on CCTV footage with regards to part of the complainant’s request. The decision notice ordered the council to provide these times to the complainant, which the council subsequently did. The complainant was not satisfied with the times provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council had provided the times. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Birmingham City Council
11 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a lease agreement between the Homes & Communities Agency, Victoria Quay Estate Limited and Westcourt Real Estate (Europe) Limited and Camper & Nicholsons Marinas Limited. The Homes & Communities Agency provided some of the requested information and withheld other information under the exception for the confidentiality of commercial information, regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Homes & Communities Agency has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0269 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Homes and Communities Agency
11 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to street cleaning schedules. Newcastle City Council (the council) responded stating that the information was not held. The Commissioners decision is that the council does not hold the requested information. As the information is not held, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Newcastle City Council
11 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the evaluation of sites considered for the Liss Village Neighbourhood Plan. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Liss Parish Council does not hold further information relevant to this request. As the request was not responded to with the statutory timeframe, she has also decided that Liss Parish Council did not meet the requirements of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. She does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
11 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested images of a third party caught on CCTV. Due to the way the request was made, Birmingham City Council (the council) initially thought he was requesting his own personal data. But following clarification that he was after the images of a third party not his own the council advised it could not legally justify releasing the images to him. The complainant complained to the Commissioner about this request being refused. During the Commissioner’s investigations, the council clarified that this request was being refused under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is able to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse this request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Birmingham City Council
11 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in relation to a building and its grounds. Newcastle City Council (the council) refused the request under regulation 12(4)(c) of the EIR as it considered it to be formulated in too general a manner. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(c) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Either issue a fresh response to the complainant providing the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice without relying on regulation 12(4)(c) of the EIR. The public authority 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: EIR 12(4)(c)
View Newcastle City Council
11 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested local authority data on homelessness for the financial years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) withheld the information under section 22 as it stated that there was an intention to publish it. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCLG has correctly applied section 22 to the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0265 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
10 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a decision not to prosecute former bishop Peter Ball in 1993. The Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) disclosed some information, but withheld the remainder under section 30(1) (investigations and proceedings) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was entitled to apply section 30(1) to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner does not require the CPS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Crown Prosecution Service
10 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various items of vehicle information. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) has refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA; it says that the cost of complying exceeds the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request engages section 12(1) and that DVLA is not obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner is satisfied that DVLA has met its duty under section 16(1) of the FOIA to offer advice and assistance with regard to the request. The Commissioner does not require DVLA to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0268 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency