27 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding, amongst other things, building, planning and conservation. Leeds City Council (the council) provided some information but also requested clarification on the information required. During this clarification, the council issued a refusal notice under regulation 12(4)(b) as it considered the request to be manifestly unreasonable because it was of the view that the request was made either under an alias or in concert with another requestor whose similar request had been refused under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is able to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Leeds City Council
27 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to Poole Borough Council (the Council) for information relating to the use of an air spade at 16 Commercial Road, Poole. Poole Borough Council responded stating that it does not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that correspondence relating to the use of the air spade is held on the Council’s website and so it was not accurate for the Council to state that it did not hold information falling within the scope of the request. The Council therefore did not comply with the requirements of section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner has also found that the Council did not hold any other information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has not ordered any steps for the Council to take in this case, as it appears the complainant is aware of the information held on the Council’s website.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
26 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the use of sapropterin. NHS England failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so NHS England breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). 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
26 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to three FCO files listed as closed. The National Archives (TNA) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied sections 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The National Archives
26 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a file listed as closed. The National Archives (TNA) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied sections 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The National Archives
26 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning a new estates strategy. NHS Greater Preston Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) withheld the information under section 22(1) of the FOIA because it said the information was intended for future publication. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG correctly applied section 22(1) to the request and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the CCG to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
26 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to two FCO files listed as closed. The National Archives (TNA) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied sections 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The National Archives
22 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (the ‘Council’) relating to the Council’s Highway Workers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse this request. Therefore, she does not require the Council to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0247 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Richmond upon Thames Council
22 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office concerning the death of Abu Nidal. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held some information falling within the scope of this request but sought to withhold this on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations) of FOIA. The Cabinet Office also sought to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any further information falling within the scope of this request on the basis of sections 23(5) (security bodies) and 24(2) (national security) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the information which the Cabinet Office acknowledges it holds is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that the Cabinet Office can rely on the exemptions contained at sections 23(5) and 24(2) in the manner that it did. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a copy of the information it has sought to w
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
22 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
South Tyneside Council (the Council) is the administrator of the Tyne & Wear Pension fund. The complainant submitted a request to the Council for information concerning private equity investments made by the Pension Fund. He specifically sought the names of the underlying funds which the Council had invested in via private equity fund of funds. The Council sought to withhold the information in question on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 41(1) (information provided in confidence), 43(1) (trade secrets) and 43(2) (commercial information). The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 41(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0228 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View South Tyneside Council
22 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”) information relating to the airstrike targeting Mohammed Emwazi aka “Jihadi John”. The AGO refused to confirm or deny whether it held information citing section 35(3) (Law Officer advice exemption) as its basis for doing so. It confirmed that it did hold press cuttings but argued that these were exempt under section 21 (information readily available to the requester). It upheld its position at internal review although withdrew reliance on section 21 during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation having disclosed to the complainant the only media report it held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO is entitled to rely on section 35(3) as its basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether it holds information within the scope of the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Attorney General's Office
22 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about particular tribunal hearings and particular companies that the Trust may use. The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) considers the request to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and that the Trust is not obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0259 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust
22 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the numbers of incidents of financial abuse reported to the Charity Commission and the number of whistleblowing reports about charities received by the Charity Commission, broken down by names of charities. The Charity Commission considered the information exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 31 and 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commissioner has correctly applied the provisions of section 41 to withhold the requested information. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View The Charity Commission
22 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a deceased doctor relating to the origins of a complaint. The GMC refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information under section 31(3) and 41(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC has correctly applied section 31(3) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View GMC
21 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (the ‘Council’) information relating to the regeneration programme. The Commissioner has determined that the Council was correct to apply section 12 of the FOIA to the request. Therefore, she does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0250 part allowed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/1531/2017 dismissed
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Kingston upon Thames Council
21 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests, the complainant has requested information broadly concerned with particular minutes and advice. Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) has refused to comply with the requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA because it considers the requests to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests are vexatious and that the Trust is not obliged to comply with them. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0251 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
21 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the names of scientists used by the UK government to review data for policies. He also requested a specific piece of evidence referred to in a specific piece of correspondence from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the DWP does not hold the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
21 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department for Education dates, agendas, circulated papers and minutes for the Adoption Leadership Board meetings between specified dates. The Department for Education disclosed the dates, agendas and circulated papers for the Adoption Leadership Board meetings but withheld the minutes in their entirety under section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education has correctly applied section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA in respect of the minutes for the Adoption Leadership Board meetings. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0245 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Education
21 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about his complaint about a particular planning matter. The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) has withheld some information under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure). It considers that section 40(2) (third person personal data) and section 42 (legal professional privilege) would also apply to this information. The LGO has withheld other information under regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings). The Commissioner’s decision is that the LGO has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) to some of the information it is withholding. The Commissioner is satisfied that the remainder of the withheld information engages regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR and that the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Commissioner does not require the LGO to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d); FOI 44
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
20 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the Redcliffe Bay Petroleum Storage Depot (‘RBPSD’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Defence (‘the MoD’) has appropriately applied regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Ministry of Defence
20 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the workforce of the 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). To date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe 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 1
View Ministry of Justice
20 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cambridge House Grammar School. The School has failed to respond to the request; therefore the Commissioner’s decision is that the School has failed to comply with section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to respond to the complainant’s request: Firstly, confirm or deny that the requested information is held (or, if the public authority decides to refuse to confirm or deny that any of the requested information is held, then a refusal notice should be issued that complies with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA). Secondly, and subject to the above, if the information is held the public authority must either disclose the requested information or, if it wishes to withhold any information, issue a refusal notice in relation to the information it wishes to withhold and disclose the remainder.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
20 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the transcripts of interviews conducted with seven named individuals who were interviewed as part of the Morecambe Bay Investigation. The interviews were conducted in open and closed sessions. The Department of Health (DH) withheld the information from the open sessions under section 22 – information intended for future publication, section 41 – information provided in confidence and section 40(2) – personal information. It applied section 41 to all the information contained in the transcripts of the closed sessions and also applied section 40(2) to some of that information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DH is not entitled to rely on section 22 to withhold the transcripts of the open session. However some of that information is exempt under section 40(2). In respect of the closed sessions, the Commissioner finds that the majority of it is exempt under section 41 and some additional information can be withheld under section 40(2). There is a
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Department of Health and Social Care
20 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Southwark Council (“the Council”) relating to whether it holds a copy of a document that gives the Monitoring Officer or Mayor the authority to reject a question to council assembly on the grounds that the person asking the question is an habitual complainer. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Southwark Council
19 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested personal information about persons cautioned for or charged with committing alleged offences against her. During the Commissioner’s investigation West Midlands Police, who had relied on the section 40(5) (a) and (b) FOIA (personal information) exemptions, instead relied solely on section 40(5)(a) FOIA. This was on the grounds that the requested information, if held, would be the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner decided that West Midlands Police were correct to rely on 40(5)(a) FOIA and that no further steps are required to comply with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0220 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Midlands Police
19 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a Soviet agent who worked for the civil service, GCHQ and MI6 in the 1940’s. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
19 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the London Borough of Bromley (“the Council”) a copy of a report regarding a private company’s delivery of parking enforcement services. The Council provided some information to the complainant but withheld other information under sections 36 and 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) but that it has incorrectly applied section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 36(2)(c) to the information that it has withheld under that exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the information that it has withheld under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 36(2)(c). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0244 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Bromley Council
19 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information, concerning the expulsion of three Israeli diplomats after August 1987, from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request citing section 23(5) (security bodies) or section 24(2) (safeguarding national security) and section 27(4) (international relations) as its basis for doing so. The Cabinet Office upheld its position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 23(5) and section 24(2) as its basis for refusing to provide confirmation or denial as to whether the requested information is held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
19 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the recovery of costs from Suffolk Constabulary (the “Constabulary”). The Constabulary provided the requested information, however, the complainant was not satisfied with this as she believed it was an inadequate response. Having considered the wording of the request the Commissioner is satisfied that the Constabulary responded appropriately; she also finds no procedural breaches. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Suffolk Constabulary
19 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Home Office correspondence with a named national charity whose Chief Executive had written to a national newspaper in support of the then Regulatory Powers Bill. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office have complied with FOIA in disclosing information to the complainant with minor redactions which had been made relying on the section 23(1) and 40(2) FOIA exemptions. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 40
View Home Office
15 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked East Stoke with Thorpe Parish Council (“the Council”) for recorded information which comprises copies of all the emails its Clerk has sent and received between 1 November 2010 and 31 May 2011 and copies of the Council’s minutes for meetings held between 30 November 2009 and 8 February 2010. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA on the grounds that to comply with the complainant’s request would require it to expend a disproportionate effort and would be excessively burdensome. In recognition of the evidence which the complainant provided in support of the second part of his request, the Commissioner has investigated whether the Council holds copies of the minutes which he seeks. She has determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested minutes and it has therefore complied with the requirements of section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authori
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 14
15 Sep 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
15 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating incidents where Highways England Fleet or Service Providers gritters have been involved in RTC's (road traffic collisions). Highways England refused to comply with part 1 of the request under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) as it said it would exceed the cost limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Highways England was correct to apply section 12 FOIA in his case. It also complied with its obligations under section 16 FOIA in relation to the way in which it dealt with this request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0216 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View National Highways
15 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a judgment in a specific court case. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. She requires the MoJ to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
15 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Kirklees Metropolitan Council (“the Council”) about communications between the Council and the Crown Prosecution Service (“the CPS”) in relation to given building addresses. The Council applied the exemption provided by section 40(5) of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”). The complainant subsequently contested the Council’s application of this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the exemption provided by section 40(5). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
15 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an audit of TalkTalk. The ICO refused to disclose the requested information under section 31(1)(g) with subsection (2)(a) and (c) and section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(c) and section 40(2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View Information Commissioner
15 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the categories NHS Improvement has segmented trusts into based on their likely trajectory towards a sustainable organisational form. NHS Improvement refused to provide the requested information under section 33(1)(b) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS Improvement has incorrectly applied section 33(1)(b) and 43(2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33; FOI 43
View NHS England
15 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel. By the date of this notice the Home Office had not responded to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days, the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
15 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Castle Point Borough Council (“the Council”) about public access to a Council meeting. The Council responded that no recorded information was held, which the complainant subsequently contested. The Commissioner’s decision is that no recorded information is likely to be held. However in failing to provide 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
View Castle Point Borough Council
15 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about out of court settlements. Under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) neither confirms nor denies that it holds this information, which it says would be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is that HSE is correct to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information, and that the exemption under section 40(5)(b)(i) is engaged. The Commissioner does not require HSE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Health and Safety Executive
15 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a Right to Buy agreement. The Department for Communities and Local Government (the DCLG) provided the information it held but the complainant considered it held more than that provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DCLG holds no further information falling within the scope of the request other than that provided. The Commissioner does not require the DCLG to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
15 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Council for a letter the Council sent to a third party regarding a property dispute between them. The Council refused to disclose the requested information under regulation 13 EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 13 EIR in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wigan Council
14 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested emails between specific Councillors and a specific individual in relation to the Horsham District Planning Framework and a letter in a local newspaper. Horsham District Council initially stated that it does not hold the requested emails for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Horsham District Council does not hold the requested information. He does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Horsham District Council
14 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding an IT audit report from the Victoria & Albert Museum (“the V & A”). The V & A disclosed the majority of the requested information to the complainant, however it refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 31(1)(a) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the V & A has correctly applied section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Victoria and Albert Museum
14 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from City University of London (“the University”) broadly relating to its relationship with Western Union. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University does not hold any information falling within the scope of point 1 of the revised request dated 2 February 2016 and point 3 of the request dated 26 February 2016. The Commissioner requires the University to take no steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0241 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
14 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a proposed new leisure complex in Exeter. Exeter City Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for prejudice to commercial interests – section 43(2) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council revised its position, handling the request under the EIR and withholding the information under the exception for the confidentiality of commercial information - regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1) of the EIR and failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information in parts (a) and (c) of the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0239 disposed of by consent order.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
View Exeter City Council
13 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a risk assessment she considered had been carried out by the Prudential Regulatory Authority (PRA) on Barclays Insurance (Dublin) Limited. The request was handled by the Bank of England, which is the parent organisation of the PRA and responsible for handling its requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Bank of England initially refused the request under section 44(1)(a) of the Act, as it considered that it held relevant information which was exempt by statutory bar. Following a clarification from the complainant for the specific information she wanted to obtain the Bank of England altered its position at internal review stage. The Bank of England stated that the information the complainant requested was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Bank of England is unlikely to hold the relevant information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bank of England
13 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Local Government reorganisation of Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) relied on section 12 to refuse the request for information. The Commissioner considers that DCLG has not satisfactorily established that the costs of compliance exceed the appropriate limit. Having failed to provide the complainant with any advice and assistance following his request, and having failed to comply with the statutory 20 day time limit for response, DCLG has breached section 16 and section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response under FOIA which does not rely on section 12, providing appropriate advice and assistance as necessary.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
13 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the outsourcing by Staffordshire Police of their staff pensions provision to a private sector contractor. Having answered previous connected requests, the police refused these requests relying on the section 14(1) FOIA exemption on the grounds that they were likely to cause a disproportionate and unjustified level of disruption, irritation and distress. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police acted correctly in relying on the section 14(1) FOIA exemption. However she also found that the police had delayed their initial response to the request for far too long. The Commissioner does not require Staffordshire Police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14; FOI 17
View Staffordshire Police
13 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence which passed between Bedford Borough Council and BT Openreach during the period 22 Feb 2010 and 15 March 2016. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any information which falls within the terms specified by the complainant in his request. She is satisfied that the Council has provided the complainant with information which is relevant to his request and that it has complied with section 1 of the FOIA. No further action is required in respect of this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bedford Borough Council