10 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a biomass energy scheme at the University of East Anglia (‘the University’). The University confirmed that it held a relevant report caught by the scope of the request and disclosed this subject to some redactions made under the ‘internal communications’ (regulation 12(4)(e)) and ‘confidentiality of commercial or industrial information’ (regulation 12(5)(e)) exceptions to disclosure in the EIR. The Commissioner has found that neither regulation 12(4)(e) nor regulation 12(5)(e) are engaged. She therefore requires the University to disclose the report with the exception of any personal data, which the complainant has confirmed can be redacted.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e)
View The University of East Anglia
6 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails sent or received by particular named employees on particular subject matters. 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
6 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to travel and accommodation expenses of the Director of News and Current Affairs. The BBC responded to some parts of the request but said that parts 2-6 and 8 of the request were covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that parts 2-6 and 8 of the request is held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does 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
6 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a former Detective Chief Inspector following what she described as his “sexual harassment of four female colleagues”. West Midlands Police (‘WMP’) initially refused to provide the information citing section 31(1)(g), law enforcement, and section 40(2), personal information. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation, WMP confirmed that it instead wished to rely on section 14(1), vexatious request, on the grounds that responding to it would be likely to cause a disproportionate and unjustified level of disruption, irritation and distress. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP acted correctly in relying on the section 14(1) FOIA exclusion. She does not require WMP to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View West Midlands Police
6 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for emails and information relating to a calculation made by Deloitte. 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
6 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails sent or received by particular named employees on particular subject matters. 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
6 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested how much the hospital is paid per patient, per year for the DAWN INR service. The Trust provided details of the acute service provision but the block contract provision was withheld under section 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 43(2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Wye Valley NHS Trust
6 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about legionella test results at a named leisure centre from Rugby Borough Council (the ‘Council’). In response, the Council provided the information it held. However, the complainant alleged that more information was held because she was aware that there had been an incidence of legionella in August 2014 at that centre, and felt that insufficient information about it had been provided to her. During the investigation, the Commissioner found that more information falling within the scope of the requests was held by the Council, which was then provided to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the ‘EIR’) for failing to disclose all the information it held relevant to the requests by the time of its internal review. Additionally, the Commissioner has determined that on the balance of probabilities no further recorded information is now held
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Rugby Borough Council
6 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning an alleged internal investigation that was conducted into a named police officer from West Midlands Police (“WMP”). WMP would neither confirm nor deny holding any information, citing section 40(5)(personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to rely on section 40(5). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Midlands Police
6 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request for the amount spent on employing agency/temporary/locum doctors in A&E departments, and the number of FTE roles covered by agency doctors. The Commissioner considers that the Trust breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority 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
5 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested details of pre-application planning advice in relation to two specific planning applications. Test Valley Borough Council withheld the information under regulation 12(3) (personal data), 13 (personal data) and 12(5)(f)(interests of the person who provided the information) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation, Test Valley Borough Council disclosed the withheld information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Test Valley Borough Council has breached regulation 5(1) of the EIR as it did not disclose the information initially when requested. The Commissioner also considers that as it took longer than 20 working days to disclose the requested information, Test Valley Borough Council has also reached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require Test Valley Borough Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Test Valley Borough Council
5 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the handling of previous information requests by West Mercia Police. West Mercia Police disclosed some information and stated that some of the requested information was not held. It asked for clarification in relation to part of the request which it did not respond to as the complainant did not provide the clarification sought. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Mercia Police has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to progress part of the request as the Commissioner’s view is that it did not reasonably require the clarification sought in order to identify and locate the information requested. It is now required to respond afresh to that part of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to point (4) of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View West Mercia Police
5 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about correspondence and meetings concerning particular individuals. The Charity Commission has released some information and told the complainant that it holds no further information within the scope of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Charity Commission holds no further relevant information and has met its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Charity Commission to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The Charity Commission
5 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to correspondence between certain UK government officials and a named individual (Person A). The Cabinet Office denied holding some of the information, and refused to disclose what it did hold under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it was third party personal data, and its disclosure would breach one of the data protection principles. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office changed its position and instead refused the request under section 38(1) of the Act, because disclosure would endanger the safety and wellbeing of Person A, and Person A’s family. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt under section 38(1) and that the balance of the public interest test favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner also finds that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) of the Act as it did not issue its refusal notice within the statutory time lim
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 38
View Cabinet Office
5 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning payments made to agents involved in five projects applying for support from the Export Credits Guarantee Department. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 41(2)(information provided in confidence) and 43(3)(prejudice to commercial interests). The Commissioner has concluded that the Export Credits Guarantee Department is entitled to rely on section 41(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View UK Export Finance
5 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (‘Cafcass’) regarding the number of Family Court cases where it has been recommended that the children involved should spend more time with their father rather than their mother. He has also requested that Cafcass should clarify how its compliance to anti-discrimination law in such cases has so far been monitored. Cafcass has applied section 12 to the first part of this request and has provided the complainant with information which explains how it monitors its casework. It has referred the complainant to its policies and its Equality and Diversity Strategy. The Commissioner is satisfied that Cafcass is correct to apply section 12 to the first part of this request. The Commissioner also considers that on the balance of probabilities, Cafcass does not hold the specific gender monitoring data required by the complainant. Its response to this part of the request is therefore in accordance
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12
View Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
5 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rolvenden Parish Council (the Parish Council) about a specified address as well as information relating to various parish council meetings. The Parish Council provided some information in response to the request but the complainant believed that it must hold further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no further relevant information is held. The Commissioner does not require the Parish Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
5 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information related to pensions for sacked civil servants. The Cabinet Office denied holding any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Cabinet Office does not hold any relevant information. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0267 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
4 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) for details of companies that had received a grant from the Council through the “Big Fund”. The Council refused the request under the exemptions in section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 43 (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 41 and section 43 exemptions are not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
View Wirral Council
4 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the investigation into an allegation of legal aid fraud. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 31(1)(a) and (g) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly applied sections 40(2) and 31(1) of the FOIA. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
4 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the personnel and payroll records of a deceased doctor. Barts Health NHS Trust (the Trust) refused to provide the information, citing the exemption under section 41 of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Barts Health NHS Trust
4 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence between the Council and consultants commissioned to produce its Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The Council provided some information, but withheld other information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR on the basis that it related to information still in the course of completion and unfinished documents. The Commissioner’s decision is that all the withheld information engages the exception; however in respect of a limited amount of that information the public interest favours its disclosure. This information has been identified in the confidential annex which accompanies this notice. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information identified in the confidential annexe. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0257 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Wealden District Council
4 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the authority to release private data. Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) confirmed that it did not hold the requested information. The complainant considered that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that DVLA does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require DVLA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
4 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested pre-application advice in relation to a proposed housing development. Darlington Borough Council refused the request, withholding the information under the exception for interests of the information provider – regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Darlington Borough Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(f) to withhold the requested information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Darlington Borough Council
4 Oct 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multi-part request to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) requesting information relating to a job re-grading exercise. Having initially cited other exemptions, the MoJ revisited the request during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation and cited section 12 of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly applied section 12. However, in failing to provide a response within 20 working days of the request, the MoJ breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
View Ministry of Justice
4 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the operation of winter night shelters. Reigate and Banstead Borough Council (the Council) provided some information within the scope of the request but withheld other information under sections 40(2) (personal information) and 41 (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The complainant disputed the application of section 41. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed the information previously withheld by virtue of that section. However, the complainant remained dissatisfied on the basis that he did not believe that all the relevant information had been disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
4 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names of particular individuals involved in considering a complaint submitted to the General Medical Council (GMC). The GMC says that under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA it is not obliged to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information. It says this is because to do so would disclose personal data of a third person which would breach the first principle of the Data Protection Act (DPA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC is correct to neither confirm nor deny it holds the information that has been requested, for the reason it has given. The Commissioner does not require the GMC to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0249 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC
4 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the location of a named council officer on a given day, reports relating to a specified planning application, and correspondence between the named council officer and third parties. Cornwall Council (the council) initially withheld the location of the officer under regulation 13 as it considered that it was personal data, it provided some information and withheld other material under regulation 12(4)(b) as it would be manifestly unreasonable to provide the information. The complainant asked the Commissioner to investigate the application of regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely on the exception in this case to withhold the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0263 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Cornwall Council
4 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about asylum claims based on the grounds of sexual orientation. The Home Office provided some information in respect of the first part of the request, and withheld the information requested at the second part, citing the exemption at section 22 (information intended for future publication). It subsequently withdrew its application of that exemption and said that the information could be disclosed, albeit with redactions to remove personal data. However, it subsequently failed to make any such disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office failed to respond to the second part of the request in accordance with the FOIA and in so doing breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a fresh response to the complainant in respect of the second part of the request, which is compliant with Part 1 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
4 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various items of information in respect of planning and bin surrounds at Wyatt Park Road. The Council initially refused this complaint by virtue of section 30(1)(b) of the FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s procedural investigation of this request, the Council issued a response stating that it did not hold relevant information. Following a further response to the complainant, the Council is now relying on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Lambeth has incorrectly relied on regulation 12(4)(b) in respect of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response that does not rely on regulations 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Lambeth
4 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the South Beach Selective Licence schemes. The Commissioner’s decision is that Blackpool Council has correctly applied the provision for vexatious requests at section 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Blackpool Council
4 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information associated with the Government’s ‘Pay to Stay’ policy at a time when the policy was being formulated and developed in support of the Housing and Planning Bill. In consequence of this, the Department for Communities and Local Government (“the DCLG”) determined that the complaint’s request should be refused in reliance on section 35(1)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DCLG was correct in applying section 35(1)(a) and therefore she does not require the Department to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
3 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested email correspondence between particular individuals for a particular period. The DoH refused to disclose the requested information under section 35(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) FOIA was applied correctly to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
3 Oct 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the closure of day services offered at a particular address by Westminster City Council (the “Council”). The Council addressed each of the questions. However with respect to one question which asked if the service specification for each of the services is a public document, the Council simply answered it is not a public document. The complainant has argued that the Council should have either provided this document or applied an exemption to the request. He has argued the Council failed to act in a helpful and open manner. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has acted in accordance with its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA. She considers the Council’s interpretation of the request was reasonable and does not consider that the Council was trying to be difficult. Its response to the other questions was helpful and satisfactory. However the Commissioner considers that in accordance with the section 45 of the code of pr
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Westminster Council
3 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding Stoke Gifford Parish Council’s decision to charge parkrun for the use of facilities during parkrun’s weekly events at a local park. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. This constitutes a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. She upholds the complaint but does not require any further action to be taken as a response has now been issued.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
3 Oct 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Government’s decision to cease funding the provision of free television licences to persons over 75 years of age. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it has not provided a substantive response to this request within 20 working days of receiving it. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a response to the complainant’s request of 29 April 2016 in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View BBC
29 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Syrian refugees. The Home Office failed to respond substantively to this request and in so doing breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. It is now required to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
29 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Following a decision in an earlier matter by the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) the complainant requested from Sussex Police information about calls made to a named mobile telephone in connection with an inquest into the death of a person whose body was found at Beachy Head. The Commissioner found that Sussex Police had held the information requested but, by the time of the information request, had passed their file to the Coroner. The Commissioner decided that the information requested was not held by Sussex Police at the date of the request and was not being held by the Coroner on their behalf. The Commissioner does not require Sussex Police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0230 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Sussex Police
29 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a number of requests to the Land Registry for information concerning bankruptcy petition notifications and bankruptcy order notifications. The Land Registry provided some information and initially argued that the remainder was not held. The complainant disputed this and on review, the Land Registry explained that the further information required was accessible via its website. It therefore applied section 21 of the FOIA to the outstanding information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Land Registry has correctly applied section 21 of the FOIA to the outstanding information. However in failing to apply section 21 of the FOIA to this part of the request within 20 working days, the Commissioner finds the Land Registry to be in breach of section 17(1)(a)(b) and (c) of the FOIA. She does not require it to take any further steps in relation to these requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 21
View HM Land Registry
29 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the way a Judge determined their decision in a specific court case. The MoJ confirmed it holds information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it relying on sections 32(1)(a) (court records) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated the MoJ’s application of section 32(1)(a) and concluded that the MoJ was entitled to rely on this exemption to withhold the information. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
29 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an extract from the PHSO Board meeting 28 July 2015. PHSO provided the complainant with some information relevant to part 3 of the request, but confirmed that it did not hold much of the requested information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the PHSO was correct to confirm that it does not hold much of the requested information under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
29 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about performance and service agreement breaches at four named airports. 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 10
View Home Office
29 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about statistics relating to recently arrived non-UK EEA nationals subject to income tax and national insurance contributions, or receiving HMRC administered benefits. By the date of this notice HMRC had yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has breached section 10 of the FOIA in that it has failed to provide a response to the request. The Commissioner requires HMRC to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
28 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about findings of the BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee about a television programme: ‘Taking the Credit’. The BBC says that it holds the information for journalistic purposes and, as such, it is not covered by the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC holds the information for the purposes of journalism and it is therefore not caught by the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
28 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report prepared for Cumbria County Council by Analysys Mason in connection with Phase 2 of the Connecting Cumbria programme and related information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cumbria County Council has as not provided sufficient evidence to apply the exemption where disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of any person at section 43(2) of the FOIA. She has also decided that Cumbria County Council has not provided sufficient reasons for applying the exemption where the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit at section 12(1) of the FOIA and did not provide adequate advice and assistance under section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under section 43(2). In relation to the request for ‘Email correspondence between Cumbria County Council and BDUK/DCMS regarding the report’, issue a fresh response under the FOIA without relying on section 12(1) of the FOIA, prov
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 43
View Cumbria County Council
28 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to illegal immigration. The Home Office refused this request under sections 12(2) (costs) and 31(1)(e) (prejudice to the operation of the immigration controls) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office refused the request correctly under sections 12(2) and 31(1)(e) and that no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 31
View Home Office
28 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to an extension which had been built next door to her house. The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames withheld the information under regulations 12(5)(d) (confidentiality) and 13(1) (third party personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames has applied regulation 13 of the EIR appropriately. She also considers that regulation 5(3) (personal data of the applicant) of the EIR applies to some of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 5(3)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
27 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various pieces of information relating to Applied Behavioural Analysis (‘ABA’) provision, Special Educational Needs (‘SEN’) statements and tribunals and home education and flexi schooling. Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (‘the Council’) provided some information, stated other information was not held and applied section 12 of the FOIA to some parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 12 to some parts of the request and that it does not hold any information relating to part 16 of the request. The Commissioner also finds that in failing to comply fully with section 1(1) of the FOIA within 20 working days, the Council breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
27 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the bid submitted by a particular company as part of a procurement exercise for the provision of health care in adult male prisons. NHS England refused to provide the tender submission under section 43 – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England is entitled to withhold the majority of the information under section 43. However some of the information is not exempt and should be disclosed subject to minor redactions which are necessary to remove the personal data of the successful bidder’s staff. The information to be disclosed has been identified to NHS England in a confidential annex to this notice. The Commissioner requires the public authority to now disclose the information identified in the confidential annex.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View NHS England
27 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about payments made, or applied for, from central funds and/or legal aid in relation to a named individual. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether it held some of the requested information - information relating to a specific court case - citing section 40(5) of FOIA (personal information). It stated that it had not received the clarification it required to respond to the remainder of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 40(5)(b)(i) in relation to the first part of the request. However, with respect to the remainder of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ did not require clarification of the request and she requires the MoJ to issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice