18 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Charter School (the ‘School’) a copy of all emails with the subject line containing “Year 9 fire issue”. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has correctly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA. Therefore the Commissioner does not require the School to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0181 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
18 Jul 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information for valuations received by West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service for certain sites, including a proposed new fire station. West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service applied section 43(2) of the FOIA, on the grounds that disclosure would prejudice commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service has applied section 43(2) (commercial interest) of the FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner does not require West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 43
View West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service
18 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office relating to customer satisfaction reports. To date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. He requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
18 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Manor CE Academy (the Academy) relating to the new School Food Standards.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Academy 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 that statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Academy to issue a response under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
14 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any legal advice the Cabinet Office has received on the potential impact of TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). The Commissioner’s decision is that Cabinet Office has correctly relied on section 42(1) to withhold the requested information from the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Cabinet Office
14 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the names of individuals appointed by the Secretary of State to each Independent Monitoring Board for each prison and Young Offenders Institution. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 40(2), the exemption for personal information, of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has correctly relied on section 40(2) in relation to this request. He does not require the MOJ to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
14 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a HepatoBiliary Multi-Disciplinary Meeting (HB MDT). The Commissioner’s decision is that East Lancashire NHS Hospitals Trust (the Trust) has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust
14 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has alleged that the public authority has failed to respond to his information requests. The public authority says it has responded to the requests, to the extent that they are valid requests for information under the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has in fact responded to the complainant’s requests. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
14 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for copies of correspondence and records of oral conversations between the former Prime Minister Tony Blair (and his representatives) and the public authority within a specified period. The public authority confirmed that it held a record of a phone conversation between Tony Blair and Lord Deighton, the former Commercial Secretary. It disclosed some information from the record of the conversation and withheld the remainder on the basis of the exemptions at sections 27(1)(a), 40(2), 41(1) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 40(2) and 41(1) to withhold the information redacted from the record of the phone conversation between Tony Blair and Lord Deighton. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View HM Treasury
14 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to Transport for London (TfL) for information relating to legislation that gives powers to TFL which allows them to instruct and dictate that a taxi driver must give credit and accept credit card payments from passengers in their taxi. TfL refused to comply with the request under section 21 and 22 FOIA. It later withdrew the application of section 22 FOIA and confirmed that it wished to rely solely upon section 21 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the TfL has correctly applied section 21 FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Transport for London
14 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a contract between East Cheshire NHS Trust and Parking Eye. The Trust provided the complainant with some of the information requested but refused to provide some information under section 40(2), 41 and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 40(2), 41 and 43(2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43
View East Cheshire NHS Trust
14 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various items of information in respect of summonses to the Magistrates Court in relation to Council Tax over a specified period. Gravesham Borough Council refused item three of the request on the basis of section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Gravesham Borough Council has correctly relied on section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Gravesham Borough Council
14 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Airports Commission. The Cabinet Office refused to provide this citing section 35(1)(a) and section 40(2) as its basis for doing so. These exemptions relate to the formulation and development of government policy and the unfair disclosure of personal data. It upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on these exemptions as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
14 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on part of a draft dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the FCO 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
13 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the application by Hampshire Constabulary (the police), when prosecuting alleged road traffic offences, of guidelines produced by the then Association of Chief Police Officers. The police relied on the section 14(1) FOIA exemption in refusing the request which was one of a set of overlapping and similar requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the police applied the section 14(1) FOIA exemption to this request correctly and that there are no further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0198 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
13 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the name and particular qualifications of a case examiner associated with a complaint he had submitted to the General Medical Council (GMC). The GMC responded to the request under both the FOIA and the Data Protection Act (DPA). Under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA, the GMC refused to confirm or deny it holds the requested information, advising that to do so would contravene the DPA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC correctly applied section 40(5)(b)(i) to the request because to confirm or deny it held the information would breach one of the data protection principles. The Commissioner does not require the GMC to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0178 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC
13 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to correspondence from a named person. The Health Education England (HEE) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that HEE has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. Therefore the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View NHS England
12 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a breakdown of accounts for two Selective Licensing schemes. The Commissioner’s decision is that Blackpool Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 12 of the FOIA where the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Blackpool Council
12 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about how the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has implemented particular recommendations. FOS says it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, FOS does not hold the information the complainant has requested. He does not require FOS to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0174 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
12 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to Cheshire East Council (“the council”) for information about the redundancy of a former council officer. The council disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under the exemption provided by section 40(2). The complainant contested the council’s application of this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2). He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cheshire East Council
12 Jul 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the GCSE’s results from the summer of 2014. The DfE released the majority of requested information but refused to disclose the information for non-accredited IGCSE’s, citing section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE was incorrect to rely on section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA, as it does not in fact hold the outstanding information. As the DfE does not hold the outstanding information, the Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36
View Department for Education
12 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two requests to Derbyshire County Council (“the council”) for information about a council officer’s declaration of interests. The council withheld information in response under the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”). The complainant contested the council’s application of this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2). He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Derbyshire County Council
12 Jul 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various items of information in three separate requests but all in respect of an on-going Council investigation, of which she was the focus. The Council provided some information, confirmed that it did not hold information in respect of some items of her request and withheld the remaining items by virtue of section 40(1) and section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Caerphilly County Borough Council has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA and that it has correctly relied on section 40(1) and 40(2) to the withheld information. However, due to delays in providing its initial response or some limited information the Council has breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View Caerphilly County Borough Council
12 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested access to the external investigation into Brecon Hospital in 2015 from Powys Teaching Health Board (‘the Health Board’). The Health Board refused the request citing section 31(1) and section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health Board correctly relied on section 40(2), for most of the withheld information, and correctly relied on section 21 in respect of information relating to the complainant’s late father. However the Heath Board should have relied on section 41 in respect of this information in respect of the other deceased patient. Other than disclosing the screen print of Brecon Police Station website, the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Powys Teaching Health Board
12 Jul 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to the Wesley Centre. Elmswell Parish Council (the council) provided the information it held. It provided some further information during the Commissioner’s investigations and also applied section 21 of the FOIA to some further information – information accessible by other means. The complainant was not satisfied with the time it took the council to provide its full response, being charged for information he considered not relevant and the format some of the information was provided in. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in responding outside the required 20 working days. He also determined that the council has complied with regulation 11 of the FOIA – means for communication – and regulation 9 of the FOIA – Fees Notice. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 11; FOI 9
12 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of various items and documents such as newsletters, Annual Governor’s Reports and programmes for plays and mass. St Richard Gwyn Catholic School (‘the School’) applied section 21 to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School correctly applied section 21 to the request. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
12 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant had requested information from the council relating to electronic back up data for previous versions of an enforcement file to demonstrate what alterations took place on the file after it had been closed. The council said that the back-up tapes were not held for the relevant period due to a server failure. The complainant therefore requested any information held by the council relating to the server failure. The council said that no information was held on the server failure. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities the council has correctly applied section 1(1)(a) as it does not hold the information which the complainant has requested. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0191 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
12 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the names and terms of office of those who have performed Legal Ombudsman duties. By failing to provide the requested information within twenty working days the Commissioner finds that the Legal Ombudsman has breached section 10. However, as the Legal Ombudsman has now provided the information in question the Commissioner does not require it to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The Legal Ombudsman
12 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) relating to meetings in the last three years with Lea Valley Regional Park regarding a land transfer between them and LBH involving Horse Shoe Point Island. 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 that statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a response under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Hackney
11 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about particular mileage expenses. Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) disclosed some relevant information and withheld other information. The Trust says the withheld information is the personal data of a third person and so exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 40(2) to the information it is withholding. He does not require the Trust to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust
7 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Immigration Removal Centres. The Home Office failed to respond to this request in accordance with the FOIA and in so doing breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. It is now required to issue a fresh response to the request that complies with the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office issue a fresh response to the complainant that is compliant with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
7 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for information concerning the interview given by the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Nicholas Houghton, to the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show in November 2015. The MOD provided the complainant with some information but withheld the remainder on the basis of sections 36(2)(b) and (c) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of these exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Ministry of Defence
7 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to Warrington and Halton Hospitals Foundation Trust (the Trust) for information relating to a Serious Untoward Incident (SUI). The Trust refused to comply with the request under section 40(2) and 21 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 40(2) and 21 FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40
View Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
7 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Following the outcome of a complaint made to the Magherafelt Nursery School (the ‘School’), the complainant requested copies of documents relevant to his complaint. The School provided the complainant’s personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the ‘DPA’) but refused to provide the remainder of the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has correctly applied section 40(2) in this case. No further action is required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
7 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made 3 related information requests about Elaine Antoinette Parent who was wanted for murder and committed suicide in 2002. Having cited various exemptions, following partial disclosure the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) withheld the remaining information citing sections 31(1) (law enforcement), 38(1) (health and safety), and 40(2) (personal information). It also neither confirmed nor denied holding any further information, citing sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) and 27(4) (international relations). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on sections 31(1) and 38(1) and also on the exclusion to neither confirm nor deny whether further information is held by virtue of section 23(5). No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0187 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 25; FOI 31; FOI 38
View Metropolitan Police Service
7 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an alleged assault. North Yorkshire Police withheld the information under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Yorkshire Police should have neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information by virtue of section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require North Yorkshire Police to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View North Yorkshire Police
7 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an incident where it was alleged that Jeremy Clarkson assaulted a man. North Yorkshire Police neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information by virtue of sections 30(3) (investigations) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. It also applied section 30(1)(a)( investigations and proceedings) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Yorkshire Police has applied section 40(5) of the FOIA appropriately to the request. The Commissioner does not require North Yorkshire Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View North Yorkshire Police
6 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a named individual’s role in Iraq. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for International Development (‘DfID’) has appropriately applied section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for International Development
6 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on how Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) staff were able to make decisions on Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) on the basis of information provided by a healthcare professional. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP is unlikely to hold the information requested. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
6 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence on the involvement of the Royal New Zealand Navy in the British Nuclear testing programmes of 1957 and 1958 with respect to radiation film badges worn by crewmen. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Defence (‘the MoD’) has appropriately relied on section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Defence
6 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the text of a letter he believed to have been sent in 2008 by David Cameron MP to the then Attorney General concerning the prosecution of a named individual and which the complainant said had been copied to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). During the Commissioner’s investigation, CPS disclosed a copy of the letter with parts of the text redacted relying on the section 40(2) FOIA exemption. The Commissioner decided that CPS had applied the section 40(2) FOIA exemption correctly and does not require CPS to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
5 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the operation of a particular traffic monitoring camera. Greater Manchester Police (“the Constabulary”) has not responded to the request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA in that it has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the Constabulary to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Greater Manchester Police
5 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a helicopter surveillance recording. West Yorkshire Police withheld the information under sections 31(1)(g) and 2(b) and (c) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Police has applied section 31(1)(g) and (2)(b) and (c) of the FOIA appropriately.
The Commissioner does not require West Yorkshire Police to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0188 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View West Yorkshire Police
5 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a decision to suspend the letting of allotment plots. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Bulmer Parish Council does not hold the requested information. He does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
5 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the operation of a particular traffic monitoring camera. Greater Manchester Police (“the Constabulary”) has not responded to the request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA in that it has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the Constabulary to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Greater Manchester Police
5 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to whether the UK citizenship of the first lady of Syria had been revoked. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 40(5) correctly so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0185 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
5 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the council to disclose the Financial Viability Assessments (FVA’s) it received for the proposed redevelopment of Olive Morris House and a site referred to as the ‘Triangle Site, as part of the councils ‘Your New Town Hall’ (YNTH) project. The council disclosed some of the requested information but withheld other information citing regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has applied regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR appropriately in this case. However, the public interest in favour of maintaining these exceptions is outweighed by the public interest in favour of disclosure. He therefore requires the council to disclose the remaining withheld information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View London Borough of Lambeth
4 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) for all the final orders of the Court in the 198 applications made by the Council in respect of the section146 notices on leaseholders in the period 1 April 2015 to 18 February 2016, and for the statement of case for each of the 198 leaseholder cases progressed to Court for the period 1 April 2015 to 18 February 2016. The Commissioner considers that the requests were vexatious and that section 14(1) was correctly engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Southwark Council
4 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the university’s provision of consultancy and training services to Abu Dhabi Police GHQ ("ADP") in relation to the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. The university disclosed some information but refused to disclose other information citing section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has acted appropriately by refusing to disclose the requested information under section 43 of the FOIA. He therefore requires no further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View The University of Salford
4 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Wolfson College (the ‘College’) information relating to the College’s financial requirements in respect of its 2016 entry admissions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the College has correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA to refuse the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the College to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14