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 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 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 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 on the detection capabilities of the BBC in relation to the TV licensing regime and online services. The BBC refused the request on the basis of section 31(1)(a), (b), (d), (g) and 2(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has correctly applied the provisions of section 31 and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View BBC
25 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two requests for information relating to staff in the department of neurology. The Trust has failed to respond to these requests 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 take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:The Trust 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 Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
24 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for correspondence it had exchanged with British American Tobacco concerning allegations of corruption by the company in East Africa. The FCO refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 23(5) (security bodies), 27(4) (international relations) and 31(3) (law enforcement). The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO is entitled to rely on section 23(5) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. Furthermore, the Commissioner has also concluded that disclosure of the FCO’s rationale for relying on the three exemptions would involve the disclosure of information that is itself exempt and thus the FCO is entitled to rely on section 17(4) of FOIA as basis not to explain to the complainant why these exemptions apply.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 23
24 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for a copy of the letter proposing that Paul Scriven be made a life peer and the letter in which this proposal was accepted. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose the requested information on the basis of sections 37(1)(a) (communications with the Sovereign), 37(1)(b) (conferring of honours) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that some of the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 37(1)(a) or section 37(1)(b). However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the remainder of the withheld information is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemptions cited by the Cabinet Office.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
24 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the handling of correspondence by the MoJ. The MoJ responded, after a delay, to some of the points in the complainant’s correspondence and refused them on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. It did not respond to the remainder of the points in the complainant’s correspondence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ cited section 12(1) correctly and so was not obliged to comply with those parts of the complainant’s request. However, she also finds that the MoJ breached section 17(5) of the FOIA in failing to respond within 20 working days with the section 12(1) refusal notice, and sections 1 and 10 in not responding to some other parts of the complainant’s correspondence that the Commissioner believes were valid requests for recorded information. The MoJ is now required to respond to those requests. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0222 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 17
View Ministry of Justice
24 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking the cost of living allowance paid to staff overseas. The MOD withheld the requested information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0266 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Ministry of Defence
24 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested two reports in respect of concerns he had raised with the Council. Both concerns arose out of planning issues, however the Commissioner has determined that only one of the reports in question is in itself environmental information. The other report will be referred to as the ‘internal audit report’. The Council provided a redacted copy of the internal audit report. Information was withheld from it under sections 40(2) – personal data, 41 – information provided in confidence and 30(2) – confidential sources. In respect of the second concern raised by the complainant the Council said that no report had been produced and that therefore it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision in respect of the internal audit report is that only a limited amount of the redacted information can be withheld under either section 40, or section 41. Section 30(2) has been applied to some of the personal data also withheld under section 40. As the Commi
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View York City Council
24 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Lowell Goddard’s expenses and the 2016/2017 budget for the Goddard enquiry. 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 the following way 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 issue a response under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
24 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about feedback and recommendations Lancashire Constabulary received from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Lancashire Constabulary initially acknowledged holding information and stated that it was exempt from disclosure under section 21 (Information accessible to applicant by other means) of the FOIA. At internal review, it revised its position, stating that it did not hold the information described in the request. Nevertheless, it provided a link to information on the IPCC website which it acknowledged holding, and which the Commissioner considers was covered by the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire Constabulary was entitled to apply the exemption at section 21 with regard to the information on the IPCC website. The Commissioner also decided that, on the balance of probabilities, at the time of the request Lancashire Constabulary did not hold any other information described in the request. The Commissi
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View Lancashire Constabulary
24 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of the Arts London (UAL) relating to funding provided by UAL to its staff to attend educational programmes, legal claims made against UAL and the academic qualifications held by some of UAL’s staff. The Commissioner’s decision is that the UAL has correctly applied section 12(1) and section 40(2) of the FOIA to parts of the request. However the Commissioner requires UAL to provide the information requested by the complainant in first portion of part 22 of the request. Specifically, the name of the person who was responsible for ‘dyslexia (disability) services in 2011, 2012 and 2013’. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0243 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 40
View University of the Arts, London
24 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant originally submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information relating to the decision to confirm the proposal of Robert Kerslake for a life peerage. The complainant subsequently sent the Cabinet Office a ‘meta-request’ seeking information generated by its handling of his original request. The Cabinet Office sought to withhold the information falling within the scope of the meta-request on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 37(1)(a) (communications with the Sovereign); 37(1)(ad) (communications with the Royal Household); 37(1)(b) (conferring of an honour or dignity); and 36(2) and (c) (effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and section 37(1)(ad).
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
23 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about meetings between the General Medical Council (GMC) and a number of named individuals including government ministers regarding the Shape of Training (SHoT) report. The information was withheld under section 36(2)(b)(ii) - inhibition to the free and frank exchange of views section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs, section 41 – information provided in confidence and section 28 – prejudice to relations between administrations within the United Kingdom. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC was entitled to withhold the majority of the information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) but there is a limited amount of information which is not exempt under either of the section 36 exemptions or those provided by sections 41 and 28. This information has been identified to the GMC in a confidential annex. The Commissioner also finds that the GMC failed to issue the complainant with a refusal notice within twenty working days of rece
Exemptions cited: FOI 28; FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c); FOI 41
View GMC
23 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Office for Standards of Education (‘Ofsted’) information regarding database(s) of staff expense claims. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and Ofsted has correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA to refuse the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require Ofsted to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
23 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about meetings between the General Medical Council (GMC) and the government regarding the Shape of Training (SHoT) report. The information was withheld under section 36(2)(b)(ii) - inhibition to the free and frank exchange of views section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs, section 41 – information provided in confidence and section 28 – prejudice to relations between administrations within the United Kingdom. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMC was entitled to withhold the majority of the information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) but there is a limited amount of information which is not exemption under either of the section 36 exemptions or those provided by sections 41 and 28. This information has been identified to the GMC in a confidential annex. The Commissioner also finds that the GMC failed to issue the complainant with a refusal notice within twenty working days of receiving the request. This is a breach of section
Exemptions cited: FOI 28; FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c); FOI 41
View GMC
23 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Health and Care Professions Council’s (HCPC) policies on employee standards. The Commissioner’s decision is that HCPC did not deal with the request for information in accordance with section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the HCPC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - Provide a response to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Health and Care Professions Council
22 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the handling of previous information requests by Warwickshire Police. Warwickshire Police disclosed some information and stated that some of the requested information was not held. It also failed to respond to one part of the request and asked for clarification in relation to another, which it did not respond to as the complainant did not provide the clarification sought. The Commissioner’s decision is that Warwickshire Police stated correctly and in accordance with section 1(1)(a) that some of the requested information was not held. However, it breached section 10(1) in failing to comply with one part of the request until the intervention of the Commissioner and breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) by failing to progress another 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Warwickshire Police
22 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a memorandum of understanding between the Home Office and its Saudi Arabian counterpart. The Home Office refused to disclose this information and cited the exemption provided by section 27(1)(a) (prejudice to international relations) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 27(1)(a) correctly so it was not obliged to disclose this information. However, she also finds that the Home Office breached section 17(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27
View Home Office
18 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FoS) for information on the costs of its software licences. The FoS refused the request under the section 43 exemption (commercial interests). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the FoS also applied section 12(1) on the grounds that the costs of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(1) was correctly applied and she requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
18 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning any “partnerships” that the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) has with NHS services within the London Borough of Bromley. The MPS provided some information but advised that it was unable to provide anything else without further clarification from the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS has properly relied on section 1(3) of FOIA to require clarification. However, as the MPS failed to provide its response within 20 working days it breached section 10(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
18 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department for Education (the ‘DfE’) information relating to the Teachers’ Superannuation (‘TAVC’) and its members. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE does not hold the requested information. Therefore, she does not require the DfE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Education
18 Aug 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 a banning order placed on an individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0213 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Richmond upon Thames Council
17 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked for information relating to criminal offences committed by police officers. Surrey Police stated that complying with this request would exceed the cost limit and cited section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey Police cited section 12(1) correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with the request. However, it breached its obligation under section 16 of the FOIA in relation to the way in which it dealt with this request. The Commissioner requires Surrey Police to provide the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Surrey Police
17 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an allegation of assault. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held the requested information but refused to provide it, citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s application of section 40(2) and has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of that exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
17 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information transferred to the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), part of the Department for Communities. At the time of issuing this decision notice PRONI had not provided the complainant with a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner requires the public authority 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: to the extent that the requested information is held the public authority must either disclose it or, if it wishes to withhold any information, issue a refusal notice in relation
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
16 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to people who were refused UK citizenship in 2013, 2014 and 2015. The Home Office failed to respond to the request and, in doing so, breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
16 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to his own medical history, together with the contact details of the bodies that supervise General Practitioners and any information held about operation “Foreigner”. The Practice dealt with the complainant’s right of access to information about his own medical treatment under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). It also provided the details of a number of bodies responsible for regulating different aspects a GP’s work. It confirmed that it did not hold any information relating to operation “Foreigner”. This information was requested in January 2016 but the practice only provided a substantive response in August. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Practice breached sections 10 and 17(1) of the FOIA which, collectively, require a public authority to confirm whether the requested information is held and, if so, to either provide that information or inform the applicant why the information is exempt from disclosure,
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
16 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the wording of a petition created in response to a consultation on planning and parking restrictions. The Commissioner’s decision is that Norfolk County Council has correctly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA. She does not require the council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0212 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Norfolk County Council
16 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to individuals who had returned to the UK after fighting for terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of this request and cited the exemptions provided by sections 23(5) (information relating to, or supplied by, security bodies) and 24(2) (national security) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5) and 24(2) were cited correctly so the Home Office was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Home Office
15 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the full, un-redacted independent enquiry report submitted by Fiona Smith, Debbie Lymn and Professor Fiona Patterson to Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (‘the Health Board’) and a copy of the recommendation of the panel to the Health Board for daily staffing number for each clinical area. The Health Board refused the request under sections 21, 31(1)(g), 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Health Board disclosed the recommendation for daily staffing figures. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health Board has correctly applied section 31(g) to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Cardiff and Vale University Health Board
15 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests, the complainant has requested information about referrals to Hertfordshire Children’s Services. Hertfordshire Community NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) has withheld the specific information requested in the first request under section 40(2) (third person personal data). It released some of the information requested in the second request and said that it is not obliged to fully comply with this request under the provision at section 12 of the FOIA (cost exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Trust has correctly applied section 12(1) to two parts of one of the requests as the cost of complying with these parts would exceed the appropriate limit. The Trust has correctly withheld some of the information requested in the remaining request as it is the personal data of third persons and is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2).The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 40
View Hertfordshire Community NHS Trust
15 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of searches of premises conducted by West Mercia Police within the police station covering the town of Droitwich during the month of January 2016. The complainant was concerned that the response by West Mercia Police had been inadequate. Following her investigation, the Commissioner decided that West Mercia Police had responded appropriately and therefore had complied with section 1(1) FOIA. No steps are required. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Mercia Police
15 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the numbers of employee references that resulted in the withdrawal of a job offer. The Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust (the Trust) withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied this exemption and does not require the Trust to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust
15 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of local authorities who do not have a current Public Service Network certificate as at the date of his request. The Cabinet Office refused to provide this citing FOIA section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement exemption) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Cabinet Office
11 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any information held by the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) about the arrest, trial and imprisonment of Hemant Lakhani who died in prison in 2013. The MPS refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information citing sections 23(5) (supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security), 27(4) (international relations), 30(3) (investigations and proceedings), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on sections 23(5) and 24(2). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
11 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Nottinghamshire Police secondees at Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (“HMIC”). HMIC provided some information and advised that the remainder was not held. This was subsequently changed to a neither confirm nor deny response for part of the request, citing section 40(5)(personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that HMIC was entitled to rely on this exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
11 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for information to the Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat) for the average total production cost of a cubic metre of water. In response Ofwat said that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is for environmental information and therefore the EIR is the correct information access regime to apply. The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is not held and so has decided that regulation 12(4)(a) applies. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0218 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View The Water Services Regulation Authority
11 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to notes made at a patient engagement meeting about Sudbury surgery. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) has correctly applied sections 1 and 22(1) of the FOIA in its response to the request. The Commissioner does not require NHS England to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 22
View NHS England
11 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a consultation on the relocation of the Post Office at Swavesey. Post Office says it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Post Office does not hold the information that has been requested. The Commissioner does not require it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Post Office
11 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about employing doctors in A&E departments and to date she has not received a substantive response. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust
11 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about convictions and offences from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). By the date of this notice, the MOJ has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ 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. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to issue a response to the request set out in paragraph 5 under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
11 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the council’s ‘All risks insurance policy’. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to respond to this request within 20 working days, Winchester City Council (the council) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the council has breached section 9(1) as it did not provide the complainant with a fees notice within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 9
View Winchester City Council
11 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on performance bands assigned to primary schools in his local area. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) considered the information exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(ii) and (c). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly engaged section 36(2)(b)(ii) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. She requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Walsall Council
11 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Register of Councillors Interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Devon Borough Council (the Council) failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. She upholds the complaint but requires no further action to be taken as a response has now been provided to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West Devon Borough Council
11 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the writer of a particular telephone note. Hadleigh Boxford Group Practice (‘HBGP’) has withheld the information because it says it is the personal data of a third person. The Commissioner’s decision is that HBGP: breached section 17(1) of the FOIA as it failed to issue a valid refusal notice; and that the requested information is the personal data of a third person and is therefore exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA. HBGP is not required to take any steps. The Commissioner notes that HBGP itself is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA. Rather, each GP within the practice is a separate legal person and therefore each is a separate public authority. The Commissioner acknowledges that when an applicant makes a freedom of information request to a medical practice it is reasonable to expect for convenience that the practice will act as the single point of contact. However, each GP has a duty under section
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
11 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of the 2014 Safety Report for the Redcliffe Bay Petroleum Storage Depot. The MOD initially sought to withhold this information on the basis of regulation 12(4)(d) (incomplete material). However at the internal review stage the MOD disclosed the requested information albeit with redactions made on the basis of regulations 12(5)(a) (national security and public safety) and 13(1) (personal data). The Commissioner is satisfied that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(5)(a). However, he has concluded that the MOD breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to complete its internal review within 40 working days. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0201 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(a)
View Ministry of Defence
10 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of two review reports concerning English language test suppliers and a review of the Life in the UK Test. The Home Office refused to disclose this information and cited the exemption provided by section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 36(2)(c) correctly so it was not obliged to disclose this information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Home Office