10 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), namely samples of a named judge’s handwriting. The MoJ confirmed it holds information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it relying on section 32(1)(c)(i) (court records) and section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s application of section 32(1)(c)(i). The Commissioner has concluded that the MoJ is entitled to rely on section 32(1)(c)(i) to withhold the information. She requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0209 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
10 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) relating to an interview given by the then Work and Pensions Secretary. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the DWP does not hold any information relevant to the request. The Commissioner also finds that the DWP breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) because its initial response to the complainant’s request was issued after more than 20 working days. As the response has been issued no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
10 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a file listed by the National Archives, but retained by the Home Office, concerning a request from the Garda Siochana to the Metropolitan Police for the services of an executioner. The Home Office disclosed some of this information, but withheld the remainder under 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 the withheld content. The Commissioner also found, however, 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
10 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant gave the name and address of an individual and requested information relating to whether that individual was a Magistrate. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of this request and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ cited section 40(5) correctly so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held this information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
9 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding correspondence between the then chair of trustees of the charity known as Kids Company and any meetings between the Charity Commission and that individual together with the details of any complaints that the Charity Commission had received about the charity. The public authority refused the request under sections 32 (information held for the purposes of an inquiry), s31(law enforcement ), 40(2) (personal data) and 41 (information provided in confidence). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission is entitled to withhold the information under section 31(1)(g) via 31(2)(g) – prejudice to the Charity Commission’s function in respect of protecting the property of charities. The Information Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in respect of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Charity Commission
9 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the council to disclose the Financial Viability Assessment (FVA) for the redevelopment of the Sweets Way estate. The council disclosed some information but refused to disclose other information citing regulations 12(5)(c), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(c) of the EIR does not apply. In relation to regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR, the Commissioner has decided that these exceptions apply. However, the public interest in maintaining these exceptions is outweighed by the public interest in favour of disclosure. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the remaining withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(c); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Barnet Council
9 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Durham County 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: EIR 5
View Durham County Council
9 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about funding allocated for dealing with litter. The Commissioner’s decision is that Highways England (HE) has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR because it did not provide a response to the request within 20 working days. HE has now provided a response and the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View National Highways
9 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Northern Ireland Civil Service-wide Voluntary Exit Scheme. The Department of Finance (DoF) applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoF has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland
9 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to organisational structure. The City of Wolverhampton Council (the Council) refused to comply with the request citing section 22(1) of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner considers that section 22(1) does not apply to this request. The Commissioner considers that the information had already been provided as part of a response to a previous request. Therefore the information was reasonably accessible to the complainant and exempt under section 21 of FOIA. As the Council was not obliged to provide the information to the complainant, section 11 (means for communication) does not arise.
Exemptions cited: FOI 11; FOI 21; FOI 22
View Wolverhampton City Council
9 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS for information about a housing venture which the Trust was involved with. The Trust failed to respond to the request and therefore the Commissioner has found that it has breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to the complainant or else issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust
9 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a now defunct family swim scheme offered by a local leisure centre. Rochford District Council (“the Council”) said that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Rochford District Council
9 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a clinical override guidance document. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder citing section 38(1)(b) (health and safety) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 38(1)(b) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Ministry of Justice
8 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the Event Management Plan for the Mutiny Festival which took place at Fontwell Racecourse in July 2015. Arun District Council refused the request under the exemption for prejudice to commercial interests, section 43(2) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority reconsidered the request under the EIR and revised its position to withhold the information under the exceptions for public safety (regulation 12(5)(a)) and adverse affect to the confidentiality of commercial information (regulation12(5)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Arun District Council failed to handle the request under the EIR and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation (14) and failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(a) and regulation 12(5)(e) are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5(1)
View Arun District Council
8 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about parking restrictions at Efailnewydd. Gwynedd Council (‘the Council’) stated it did not hold any the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any recorded information relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Gwynedd Council
8 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (the ‘Council’) information regarding an individual and a banning order. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the Council has correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA to refuse the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0226 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Richmond upon Thames Council
8 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested recorded information from East Devon District Council which concerns the development of the Queen's Drive site on Exmouth Seafront. The Council has provided the complainant with information which relates to parts of his request. It has withheld other information – redacted sections from a report presented to the Council’s Cabinet a report commissioned from Jones Lang LaSalle, in reliance on Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Devon District Council has properly applied Regulation 12(5)(e) to the information it is withholding and it is therefore entitled to withhold that information from the complainant. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council has contravened Regulation 5(2) of the EIR for its failure to respond to the complainant’s request within the required time for compliance. No further steps are required in this matter.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View East Devon District Council
8 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to public authorities and information relating to MoJ’s Head of Disclosure Team. The MoJ refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that MoJ has correctly applied section 14(1) to the request. She does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0221 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Justice
8 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted two requests to the Department for Education (DfE): (1) for the period May 2013 to May 2014 copies of correspondence between Chris Wormald and representatives of Marshall Wace LLP, including Paul Marshall, and, or ARK and, (2), details of a specific meeting attended by Chris Marshall at Marshall Wace LLP. The DfE has provided some of the information covered by the scope of the requests but has withheld the remaining records under various limbs of the ‘prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs’ (sections 36(2)(b)(i)(ii) and 36(2)(c)) exemptions to disclosure in FOIA. It also considers that parts of the requested material is covered by the ‘commercial interests’ (section 43(2)) and ‘third party personal data’ (section 40(2)) exemptions. The Commissioner has found that the exemptions in section 36(2) are engaged and that, in all the circumstances, the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in withholding the requested in
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
8 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to sea and river depth data from Great Yarmouth Port Authority (the GYPA). The GYPA stated that it was not a public authority for the purposes of the Regulations. It also clarified that it did not consider that it held the majority of the information requested, and that, if it was a public authority, it considered that exceptions may be applicable but had not considered this point fully as it did not consider this was the case. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GYPA is a public authority for the purposes of the Regulations. The Commissioner has however refrained from making a decision on the application of the exceptions at this point and requires the GYPA to now consider the requests and the information it holds and respond to the complainant in accordance with its obligations under the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to reconsider the request and respond to the complainant in accordance with its obligations
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)(c)
8 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recorded information about the sizes of enterprises and the make-up of their workforces in the area of Derby City Council and nationally. The Commissioner has decided is that the Council has breached section 1 of the FOIA in respect of a list of Derby companies which it found during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. In respect of all the other pieces of information which the complainant seeks, the Commissioner’s has decided that the Council has complied with section 1. She has also decided that the Council has breached section 10 of the FOIA for its late compliance to the complainant’s request in respect of the list of Derby companies. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Derby City Council
8 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a commercial agreement to provide car park management. Stevenage Borough Council (the council) refused to comply with the request citing section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Stevenage Borough Council
8 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Bulkeley Estate. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Government Legal Department does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Government Legal Department
8 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Bromley (the ‘Council’) information relating to Village Green Way dated from June 2004. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Bromley Council
4 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a charging decision in relation to an allegation of murder. The Crown Prosecution Service withheld the information under sections 30(1)(c) (criminal proceedings) and section 40(2) (third party personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service has applied section 40(2) of the FOIA appropriately to the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Crown Prosecution Service to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
4 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the GDC for the indemnity certificate of a particular registrant. The GDC refused to disclose the requested information under section 31(1)(g) with subsection (2)(d), 40(2) and 41 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GDC has correctly applied section 40(2) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View General Dental Council
4 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”) regarding petitions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not deal with the request for information in accordance with section 10 of the FOIA in the following way: It failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. Since the requested information has now been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
4 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all the information held by the Department for Education (the DfE) in its qualified teachers’ database for a named individual. The DfE has applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to this request. It also considers that section 38(1) applies. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied section 40(2) to this request. He has therefore not considered the application of section 38(1) to this request. There are no further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for Education
4 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the CCG for its recruitment and selection policy and information relating to the ethnic breakdown and qualifications of staff on the Quality & Safety Team broken down by job grade and job role/title. The complainant also asked for an ethnic breakdown and qualification information of shortlisted candidates for a role on that team. The CCG provided all of the requested information but refused to provide the job role/title of staff on the Quality and Safety team as it did provide the ethnic breakdown, qualification information and job grade of staff on that team. It considers that the job role/title information alongside the information it did provide was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG has correctly applied section 40(2) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Birmingham Cross City Clinical Commissioning Group
4 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a breakdown of the current market rents (CMRs), in particular the £/m2 or £/sq.ft, for practices in Herts Valleys as well as the premises grade for each practice. NHS England provided the complainant with information relating to premise grading but refused to provide information regarding the cost of individual premises under section 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England correctly applied section 43(2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View NHS England
4 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an NMC investigation about a named nurse. The NMC has confirmed that it does not hold any information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the NMC was correct to confirm that it does not hold any information under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NMC
4 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested figures connected to monthly numbers of arrests of people suspected of helping to support or plot with the Islamic State over the last two years. The Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) advised that to comply with the request would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that this has been properly relied on and no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Metropolitan Police Service
4 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from English Heritage relating to contact and communications it has had with the Prince of Wales. The Commissioner’s decision is that English Heritage does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires English Heritage to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View English Heritage
4 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the attachments beginning with '7DS' to emails provided in response to a separate FOIA request. 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
4 Aug 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a joint waste contract relating to the Sinfin Tannery site. Derby City Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for the confidentiality of commercial information – regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Derby City Council failed to demonstrate that the exception in regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0206 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Derby City Council
3 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to Gloucestershire County Council (“the Council”) for correspondence between the Council and a primary school. The Council withheld information under section 36, which provides an exemption where disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The complainant contested the Council’s application of this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) and demonstrated that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36
View Gloucestershire County Council
3 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in the form of correspondence between the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland (“the CCNI”) and certain other organisations between specified dates. The CCNI applied section 12(1) of FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCNI has correctly applied section 12(1) to the requested information. As the CCNI has also offered the complainant several opportunities to narrow and/or refine her request, the Commissioner is also satisfied that the CCNI has fulfilled its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Equality Commission for Northern Ireland
3 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to requests for early release from prison on compassionate grounds. The MoJ cited section 12 of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied section 12. She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0205 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Ministry of Justice
3 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the food items a particular prisoner was allowed to receive while in Wakefield prison. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information citing section 40(5) of the FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 40(5)(b)(i). She requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0208 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
3 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from East Sussex County Council which concerns a property which he owns. The complainant’s request was refused by the Council in reliance on Regulation 12(4)(b), on the grounds that to do so would be manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner has considered the Council’s application of Regulation 12(4)(b) in the light of its previous application of this same exception in respect to a prior request made by the complainant for related information. The Commissioner has decided that East Sussex County Council is entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b). The Council is not required to take any further steps in this matter.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View East Sussex County Council
3 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various items of information from Trefeglwys Community Council, and in particular correspondence between the Council and One Voice Wales (OVW) in respect of her complaint against the Council. The Council initially refused the request by virtue of section 14(1) on the basis that it was vexatious. However, following the Commissioner’s intervention, the Council provided further information and confirmed that it did not hold information in respect of other items of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Trefeglwys Community Council has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. However, the delay in providing some of the information to the complainant represents a breach of section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
2 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a multi-part request to Neen Savage Parish Council for recorded information relating to different areas of the Council’s responsibilities. The Commissioner’s decision is that Neen Savage Parish Council does not hold recorded information which is relevant to item 6 of the complainant’s request. She has decided that the Council is entitled to withhold information relating to item 13 of the complainant’s request in reliance on section 40(2) of the FOIA. In respect of items 14 and 15 of the complainant’s request, the Commissioner has decided that the Council has breached section 1 of the FOIA. She also finds that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within twenty working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the complainant in respect of the recorded information it holds relevant to items 14 and 15 of his request; namely the invoice entitled ‘The Royal British Le
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
2 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a number of requests for information to Normandy Parish Council between 7 October 2015 and 1 November 2015. The complainant’s requests relate to audit reports, a transcript of a telephone conversation between the Parish Clerk and a person working for the Council’s auditors, a statement to be made by the Chairman of the Council and information which concerns the Council’s employment of an assistant clerk. The Commissioner’s decision is that Normandy Parish Council does not hold a transcript of the telephone conversation which the complainant seeks. She has also decided that the Council does not hold information falling within the description of the complainant’s request for information relating to the Council’s employment of an assistant clerk. The Commissioner has considered the complainant’s request for the statement which was to be made of the Council’s Chairman at its meeting of 28 October 2015. The Commissioner has decided that the Council was entitled
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17
2 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the council to disclose the Pre-planning advice it gave to her neighbour in October 2014, any case notes that were taken by the planning officer during their visit to the property and photographs taken. The council released a redacted version of the Pre-planning advice it holds, citing regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR for the sections it wished to withhold. It confirmed that it does not hold any case notes relating to the officer’s visit but disclosed all photographs taken to the complainant. The Commissioner’s investigation focussed on the redacted version of the Pre-planning advice and although regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR was applied by the council, the Commissioner considered the withheld information is third party personal data and regulation 13 of the EIR was more appropriate. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining withheld information is exempt from disclosure under regulation 13 of the EIR and therefore no further action is required in t
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 13
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
2 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding an internal review of Torridge District Council’s (the council) procedure for listing and delisting Assets of Community Value. The council refused to comply with the request citing section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).The Commissioner considers that this request has been made in concert with other requesters who have submitted previous requests as part of a campaign causing burden and disruption for the council. Therefore the council has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Torridge District Council
2 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants have requested information regarding an internal review of Torridge District Council’s (the council) procedure for listing and delisting Assets of Community Value. The council refused to comply with the request citing section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Torridge District Council
2 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a request to Essex County Council (“the Council”) for information about vehicle crossing (also known as ‘dropped kerb’) applications. The Council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”). The Commissioner finds that the Council has correctly refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b). She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Essex County Council
1 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for documents and correspondence relating to any possible award of an honour to the late US artist Michael Jackson by Her Majesty The Queen. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemption at section 37(1)(b) FOIA (the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 37(1)(b). No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0189 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
1 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested 10 years details of budgetary costs for providing “Specialist Protection” from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to provide the information citing the exemptions at sections 24(1) (national security), 31(1)(a)(b) (law enforcement) and 38(1)(b) (health and safety) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
1 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for a copy of the citation used to support the award of an honour to Lin Homer by Her Majesty The Queen. The public authority withheld this information on the basis of the exemption at section 37(1)(b) FOIA (the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 37(1)(b). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office