13 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cumbria County Council (“the Council”) about the social care of a now deceased person. The Council refused the request under section 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the information under section 41(1). However in applying the exemption outside the time for compliance the Council breached section 17(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0237 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 41
View Cumbria County 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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a contract between Plymouth City Council and Plymouth Guild Plymouth Carers Hub. Plymouth City Council provided a copy of the contract on the twentieth working day. The Commissioner’s decision is that Plymouth City Council has responded ‘promptly’ in accordance with section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Plymouth City Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Plymouth City Council
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
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 has requested evidence used as a basis for comments made in a draft set of minutes which appeared on the council’s website relating to a planning development. The council stated that the draft minutes had been published by mistake and removed the comments from the final minutes, however the complainant still requested the evidence upon which the comments were made. The council stated that no information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities the council was correct to state that no information is held. He has however decided that the council did not comply with section 10(1) in that its response to the request was not received within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View East Devon District Council
13 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to Sheffield City Council’s (the council) interactions with a named developer, and a quote for works, regarding an ongoing issue with a narrowed road. The council refused this request on the grounds it was manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. However, the Commissioner is not persuaded that the exception is engaged by the request. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Sheffield City Council
13 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the “Estate Management Scheme”. The Commissioner’s decision is that Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (the council) has correctly applied the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(d), 12(4)(e) and 12(4)(b). However the Commissioner also finds that the public interest in maintaining the exception at 12(4)(e) is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing some the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the council to provide the complainant with the information listed in the annex. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
12 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to Dorset County Council (“the Council”) for the identity of a party who purchased specific land from the Council. The Council disclosed information in response, but the complainant contested that the Council had not provided the information that was specifically requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided all relevant held information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0261 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Dorset County Council
12 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the Department for Transports (“DfT”) use of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”) in conducting investigations into its own staff. The DfT refused to either confirm or deny if the information was held on the basis of sections 30(3) and 31(3). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has correctly applied the exclusion from the duty to confirm or deny if information is held set out in section 31(3) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Department for Transport
12 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked the London Borough of Camden (the “Council”) for correspondence between specific dates and individuals regarding the site allocations development plan for a given address. The Council provided a response to this request under the EIR however the complainant was not satisfied with this response and requested an internal review. This has not been provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to comply with the requirements of regulation 11(3) and 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to conduct an internal review in respect of the request made on 13 June 2016 that complies with the requirements of regulation 11(3).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(3); EIR 11(4)
View Camden Council
12 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made several requests for information about planning, drainage and development matters from Telford and Wrekin Council (the council). Having initially handled each request separately, the council ultimately reviewed all of the requests together and treated them as vexatious under FOIA section 14 or manifestly unreasonable in accordance with EIR regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 14 or regulation 12(4)(b) to all of the requests. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0242 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Telford and Wrekin Council
12 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information, including legal advice, in respect of the General Permitted Development Order Class Q agricultural buildings to dwelling houses, and paragraphs 108 and 109 of the Planning Practice Guidance. The council provided some information in response to this request, but stated that a portion was legal advice and was exempt under section 42 of the FOIA. During the course of the investigation, the council released an extract of the legal advice to the complainant. It also determined that the EIR was the appropriate legislation and therefore confirmed that it was withholding the remaining information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that East Hertfordshire District Council has correctly applied the exception at 12(5)(b) and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, in responding outside the statutory time frame, the Commissioner finds the council in breach of regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(1)
View East Hertfordshire District Council
8 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Police and Crime Commissioner for Warwickshire (‘OPCCW’) about a police investigation. OPCCW provided some of the information but withheld the remainder citing sections 31(1)(g), law enforcement, 40(2), personal information and 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has decided that OPCCW should have instead relied on the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision in section 40 of FOIA in response to this request. The reasons for this are set out in this notice. Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is that under FOIA, OPCCW was not obliged to confirm whether or not it held the requested information on the basis of section 40(5)(a). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
8 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding permanent secretaries. The Commissioner finds that in failing to provide a response within 20 working days of the request, the Cabinet Office has breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
8 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information, including internal papers and external correspondence, on an online petition launched by Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust (“the Trust”). The Trust has failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner considers that the Trust breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
8 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Police and Crime Commissioner for Warwickshire (‘OPCCW’) about a police investigation. OPCCW provided some of the information but withheld the remainder citing sections 31(1)(g), law enforcement, 40(2), personal information and 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has decided that OPCCW should have instead relied on the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision in section 40 of FOIA in response to this request. The reasons for this are set out in this notice. Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is that under FOIA, OPCCW was not obliged to confirm whether or not it held the requested information on the basis of section 40(5)(a). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
8 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Education Funding Agency (“EFA”) information about the redevelopment of Chagford Primary School (“CPS”). The EFA provided some information but withheld other information under sections 40(2) and 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the EFA correctly applied section 43(2) to the information that it withheld, that it complied with section 1, as it holds no further information falling within the scope of complainant’s request, and that it complied with section 10(1), by responding promptly to the request. However, she has decided that the EFA breached section 10(3), by taking more than a reasonable time to carry out the public interest test in relation to section 43(2), and breached section 17(1), by failing to state within 20 working days of receipt of the request that it was applying section 40(2) to some information. The Commissioner does not require the EFA to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. As an executive age
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 43
View Department for Education
8 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report, meeting notes and minutes relating to a meeting attended by members of Shaftesbury Town Council and a member of North Dorset Council relating to a complaint made about him by members of staff at Shaftesbury Town Council. Shaftesbury Town Council provided the majority of the information under the Data Protection Act, however North Dorset Council said that it held no information in response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities, North Dorset Council was correct to state that it holds no relevant information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0215 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View North Devon District Council
7 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Derwentside College (the ‘College’) information relating to its Data Protection / Compliance Policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College does not hold the requested information. Therefore, she does not require the College to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
7 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of South Wales (“the University”) relating to a complaint made to the University by a named individual regarding the copying/misappropriation/plagiarism of work/ideas by another named individual. The University would neither confirm nor deny holding any information citing section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly applied section 40(5)(b)(i) and requires the University to take no steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0236 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View University of South Wales
7 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding any meetings or correspondence between senior Land Registry officials (both internally and externally with the Cabinet Office) which mention or relate to the data which the Land Registry collects on which foreign companies own which land and property titles in England and Wales. The Land Registry withheld the requested information on the basis of section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Land Registry correctly withheld the requested information under section 35(1)(a) and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View HM Land Registry
7 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Voluntary Exit Scheme in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The Department refused the request under section 22 since it said it intended to publish the requested information after the scheme closed. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Department disclosed the requested information to the complainant, but the complainant asked that the Commissioner issue a decision notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 22 of the FOIA is engaged, but the public interest in maintaining that exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. However, since the requested information has been disclosed the Commissioner does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
7 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Merton (the “Council”) a copy of the high level ‘output based specification’ for the procurement of the parks and open space maintenance services. The Council refused to disclose the requested information under the ‘material in the course of completion, unfinished documents and incomplete data’ (regulation 12(4)(d)) exception in the EIR. It has also applied the ‘third party personal data’ (regulation 13) exception to a limited part of the requested information. The Commissioner has decided that regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged and that in all the circumstances the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. She does not therefore require the Council to take any steps as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0229 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Merton Council
6 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to a grant for Steyning Area Youth Service. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Horsham District Council does not hold further information relevant to this request. She does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Horsham District Council
6 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department for Transport (DfT) for information about the use of the airport at Manston Kent during Channel Tunnel and Ferry disruptions. The DfT refused the request under the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt under section 43(2) and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Transport
6 Sep 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence between Wrexham County Borough Council (‘the Council’) and Geldards LLP Solicitors with regard to the former Grove Park School site in Wrexham. The Council failed to respond within the statutory 20 working days prescribed by FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not respond to the request within the timescale for compliance. As a substantive response has been provided to the complainant, he does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Wrexham County Borough Council
5 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information as to whether the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has investigated an alleged breach by a financial firm regulated by the FCA. The FCA refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information on the basis of section 31(1) and (3) and 43(2) and (3). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA has correctly applied the exclusion in section 43(3) to neither confirm nor deny if the information is held. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(3)
View Financial Conduct Authority
5 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information or correspondence sent between the London Borough of Merton (the “Council”) and the Lawn Tennis Association (the “LTA”) in connection with the registration of a named tennis club as a tennis venue (place to play) and regarding any of its members. The Council initially refused this request under the EIR and the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”). However on review it considered that the whole request fell under the DPA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is for personal data and is therefore exempt under regulation 5(3) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(3)
View Merton Council
5 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the University of Sussex (“the University”) information about international students and staff at the University. The University applied section 12 to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 12 to the complainant’s request. She therefore does not require the University to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the Act.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View University of Sussex
5 Sep 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the trustees of the pension scheme of the Abbey Christian Brothers Grammar School (the “School”). The School responded to the request and has informed the complainant that he has received all the information that it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the School has provided all the requested information which it holds and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1)(a) and (b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0238 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a)(b)
1 Sep 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the warrants used by three named Trading Standards Officers at Suffolk County Council (the “Council”). The Council initially cited section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data) as its reason for refusing to provide this information. It revised this position at internal review and introduced reliance on section 31(1)(a) (prejudice to law enforcement). The complainant had also requested a copy of the Letter of Delegation that gave the officers the authority to act on the Council’s behalf. The Council did not properly address this request until it undertook an internal review of its original response when it denied holding a letter of delegation. It provided information about the delegation of authority in this matter. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) as its basis for refusing to provide the warrants. However, it breached its obligations under section 1 and section 10 in failing to deny within
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 31
View Suffolk County Council
31 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to people transferred to the UK under the Dublin III regulations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office did not deal with the request for information in accordance with section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) in that it failed to provide a response to the request within that statutory time frame of 20 working days from receipt. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
31 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a number of files from the Cabinet Office which were subsequently transferred in part to The National Archives (“TNA”). In a much delayed response, the Cabinet Office cited section 22 (intended for future publication), section 27 (international relations) section 23 (security bodies) and section 24 in the alternative (safeguarding national security), and section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data). It upheld this at internal review although dropped reliance on section 40.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was not entitled to rely on section 22 in respect of some of the information to which it was applied. It was entitled to rely on section 22 in respect of some of the requested information. Also the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on the other exemptions it cited at internal review as its basis for refusing to provide the other information within the scope of the request. However, it has also contravened the requirements of secti
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 22; FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
31 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Health and Care Professions Council (the HCPC) about the background of the named panel members of a Fitness to Practice hearing. The Commissioner’s decision is that HCPC has correctly applied section 40(2) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the HCPC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Health and Care Professions Council
31 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the costs of various court cases. The Crown Prosecution Service explained that it did not hold some of the requested information and in relation to four court cases, was neither confirming nor denying whether it held the requested information by virtue of section 40(5) Personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service has applied section 40(5) of the FOIA appropriately. He also considers that, on the balance of probabilities, the Crown Prosecution Service does not hold any further information and therefore has not breached section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Crown Prosecution Service to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(5)
View Crown Prosecution Service
31 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the social and health care provision of the council and copies of certain policies and procedures. The council responded refusing to deal with the requests, citing section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has acted appropriately by refusing to comply with the complainant’s requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0231 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Richmond upon Thames Council
30 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for a copy of the legal advice referred to in the Prime Minister’s announcement that a Royal Air Force remotely piloted aircraft had killed three people near Raqqa in Syria. The Cabinet Office sought to withhold the requested information on the basis of the exemptions contained at the following sections of FOIA: 23(1) (security bodies), 26(1) (defence), 27(1) (international relations), 35(1)(c) (Law Officers’ advice), 40(2) (personal data) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has concluded the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) of FOIA. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
30 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Department for Work and Pension’s (DWP) press relations with the Disability News Service (DNS). The DWP refused to confirm or deny whether information was held, but confirmed that if it was held it would be refused under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) because it would be third party personal data. This in effect is a refusal under section 40(5)(b)(i). The DWP breached section 17(1) because of the failures in its refusal notice. However, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken in respect of the section 17(1) breach, as this notice effectively informs the complainant of the change in the DWP’s position. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP incorrectly applied section 40(5)(b)(i) in neither confirming nor denying whether the relevant information was held. The DWP provided additional submissions to withhold the held information under section 40(2), and the Commissioner’s decision is
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the RAF drone strike in Syria which killed two Britons fighting with so-called Islamic State. The Cabinet Office refused to provide this citing a number of exemptions as its basis for doing so: section 23 (security bodies); section 26 (defence); section 27 (international relations); section 35 (Law Officer advice); section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data); section 42 (legal advice). It upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 23(1) and section 35(1)(c) as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
30 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to the RAF drone strike in Syria which targeted and killed two British citizens fighting with the so called Islamic State. The public authority declined the request in reliance on the exemptions at sections 23(1) (Information supplied by, or relating to bodies dealing with security matters), 26(1) (Defence), 27(1) (International Relations), 35(1)(c) (Information relating to the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers or any request for the provision of such advice), 40(2) (Protection of personal data) and 42(1) (Legal Professional Privilege) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information held within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemptions at sections 23(1) and 35(1)(c). Information Tribunal appeal FS50613152 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 35
View Attorney General's Office
30 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) for a copy of the legal advice referred to in the Prime Minister’s announcement that a Royal Air Force remotely piloted aircraft had killed three people near Raqqa in Syria. The AGO’s sought to withhold the requested information on the basis of the exemptions contained at the following sections of FOIA: 23(1) (security bodies), 26(1) (defence), 27(1) (international relations), 35(1)(c) (Law Officers’ advice), 40(2) (personal data) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has concluded the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) of FOIA. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Attorney General's Office
25 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) for Lincolnshire relating to complaints made about the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police.The OPCC refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal information) as its basis for doing so.The Commissioner’s decision is that the OPCC incorrectly withheld information relating to complaints about the Chief Constable by virtue of section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information. The OPCC 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0217 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
25 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about counter terrorist training and a meeting from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS provided some information but, in respect of one part of the request, advised that no information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no information is held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Metropolitan Police Service
25 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to guidance issued by the GMC to junior doctors. The GMC has failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner considers that the GMC breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The GMC must provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. 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: FOI 10
View GMC
25 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Plymouth City Council (the “Council”). The requested information relates to an investigation of a complaint which was made by the complainant. The Commissioner has considered the actions taken by the Council in respect of the complainant’s information request. She has decided that the Council’s response does not comply with the provisions of section 17 of the FOIA. In view of this decision, the Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response. The Council 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: FOI 17
View Plymouth City Council
25 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to incidents of harassment of West Mercia Police (WMP) solicitors. WMP stated that it was unable to establish whether it held the requested information within the cost limit and cited section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP cited section 12(2) correctly so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View West Mercia Police
25 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an online claim system, including with respect to the number of online claims that have been struck out for specific reasons. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) cited section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit).The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied section 12(1). She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Ministry of Justice
25 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about allegations made about some of Oadby and Wigston Borough Council’s (the ‘Council’) officers. The Council disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under sections 31(1)(g) and 2(b) and (c) (law enforcement) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has applied section 31(1)(g) and (2)(b) and (c) of FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Oadby and Wigston Borough Council
25 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to cremations held at the Bushbury Crematorium.Wolverhampton City Council (the Council) refused to comply with 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 the Council was correct to apply section 12 FOIA in his case. However it breached its obligations under section 16 FOIA in relation to the way in which it dealt with this request.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:Provide the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with the Council’s obligations under section 16 FOIA. 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 dea
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Wolverhampton City Council