4 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about circumcision techniques and methods. The General Medical Council (GMC) says it does not hold the information the complainant has requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the GMC does not hold the requested information and has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. He does not require the GMC to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0186 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/931/2017 (permission to appeal) refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View GMC
30 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of emails between a member of Winchester City Council (the council) and two architects. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to respond to the request for internal review the council has breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a)
View Winchester City Council
30 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the index of the Employment Tribunal database. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) advised that it does not hold such an index. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held. He does not require the MOJ to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
30 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information to the House of Commons (the ‘HOC’) for a list of MPs who are Freemasons and associated details. However, he addressed the request to Michael Gove Member of Parliament (‘MP’) and not directly to the HOC. The Commissioner’s decision is that, for the reasons set out in this notice, the request is not valid under FOIA. He does not require the HOC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
30 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Semperian Board Minutes from Transport for London (TfL). After investigation, the Information Commissioner has found that the information sought by the complainant is not held by TfL for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL is entitled to rely on section 3(2)(a) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Transport for London
30 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the file listed as closed file (reference FCO 57/955) on the Discovery catalogue. The National Archives (TNA) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemptions under section 38(1) and section 40(2) of the FOIA (health and safety and third party personal data) as its basis for doing so.
The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied sections 38(1) and 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 40
View The National Archives
30 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council for details of managers responsible for the Children’s Leaving Care Service. The Council originally refused to disclose the information under the exemptions in section 31(1)(c) (law enforcement), section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2) (personal information). However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council agreed to disclose the previously withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to disclose all of the withheld information within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Wigan Council
29 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Exemptions cited: EIR 3(2)
View Duchy of Cornwall
29 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about page requests to the football content on the BBC website. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
29 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the British Museum (“the Museum”) relating to advice given to the Museum by British Petroleum (“BP”) in relation to the management of protests. The complainant was satisfied with the information provided in response to parts 1 to 3 of the request, but believed that further information was held in response to part 4. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Museum does not hold the information relating to part 4 of the request. The Commissioner requires the Museum to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View British Museum
29 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the names of the MPs who have had complaints about their expenses assessed but were not investigated. The Compliance Officer for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (The Compliance Officer) 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 section 40(2) is engaged for all complaints that are assessed as containing allegations of a criminal nature and for all complaints that are assessed and closed prior to investigation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
29 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a number of requests for information relating to complaints made about care providers working with the council. The council responded to the majority of requests however it refused a number and applied section 12 (exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 12 to the requests. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Cornwall Council
29 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Enfield (the Council) relating to business rates for the last 5 years. 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 Enfield Council
29 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence between the council and a charitable organisation, Aspiring Communities, and its agents regarding a planning application to build a community centre in Beeston, Leeds. The council disclosed the majority of the information however it withheld the names of some individuals named in the correspondence, and also the contact details for some individuals. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the council disclosed further names to the complainant however it retained its reliance upon Regulation 12(3) for some individuals. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied Regulation 12(3) to some names, however the identity of other individuals should be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of individuals on the steering group who have already been identified on the Aspiring Communities website.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(3)
View Leeds City Council
29 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Education Funding Agency (“EFA”), an executive agency of the Department for Education (“DfE”), information about the redevelopment of Chagford Primary School. The EFA applied section 12 of FOIA to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has: complied with section 1 as it reasonably interpreted the scope of the complainant’s request; breached section 10(1) as it did not respond to the complainant’s request promptly; correctly applied section 12 to the complainant’s request; and breached section 16 as it did not provide reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps in relation to its breach of section 16 as the complainant has subsequently submitted a new request to which it did not apply section 12. As an executive agency of the DfE, the EFA does not constitute a public authority for the purposes of FOIA and so this notice is issued to its pare
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Education
29 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning Oakhaven Care Home in York. At the date of this notice, City of York Council (‘the Council’) has not provided a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA (time for compliance) because it has not responded to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to comply with the request, which was clarified on 12 November 2015, or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View York City Council
29 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Leeds City Council provide him with recorded information which relates to the Council’s handling of his complaints connected to a wall at Grange Cottage, Ledsham. The Council refused the complainants request in reliance on the exception to disclosure provided by Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council has properly applied Regulation 12(4)(b) to the complainant’s request and it is entitled to withhold any information it holds which is relevant to his request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0182 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Leeds City Council
28 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to asylum policy guidance on discretionary leave. The Home Office failed to respond to the request and, in so doing, 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
27 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of correspondence sent by John Scarlett on approximately 8 March 2004 to the Iraq Survey Group, which the complainant suggests was probably addressed to Charles Duelfer. The Cabinet Office refused to provide it citing section 23(1) (security bodies’ information). Where section 23 did not apply, it relied on section 24(1)(safeguarding national security), it also relied on section 27 (prejudice to international relations). It upheld this at internal review. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office explained that the information was now going to published by the Iraq Inquiry (due to report on 6 July 2016). It sought to rely on section 22 (information intended for future publication) in respect of this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is not entitled to rely on section 22 as its basis for withholding the information but that all the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 23(1) o
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
27 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information from Trinity Hall in connection with a benefaction made to it by a private benefactor. Trinity Hall withheld the requested information in its entirety citing sections 40(2) and 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Trinity Hall correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Trinity Hall to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0193 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
27 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to anti-fracking protests that had taken place at Barton Moss, Manchester. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) refused the request on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS cited section 12(1) correctly so it was not obliged to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Crown Prosecution Service
27 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on how Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (‘the Health Board’) implemented recommendations arising from a report issued by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (‘the Ombudsman’). The Health Board failed to respond within the statutory 20 working days prescribed by FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health Board breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not respond to the request within the timescale for compliance. As a substantive response has been provided to the complainant, he does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cardiff and Vale University Health Board
27 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of the original bid submitted to Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) by 8th Wonder for the sale of three civic halls. The Council refused the request on the basis that it was manifestly unreasonable by virtue of regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. He requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Wigan Council
23 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to domiciliary care services. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council disclosed some information, withheld other information under the exemptions for prejudice to commercial interests (section 43(2)) and applied section 12(1) to some of the request because it considered that compliance would exceed the cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council: Correctly applied section 12(1) but did not provide advice and assistance and breached section 16; Correctly engaged the exemption in section 43(2) but failed to show that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption; Failed to demonstrate that section 44(1)(a) was engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under section 43(2) and, contact the complainant and provide advice and assistance in compliance with section 16 in respect of information in parts 1(ii), 2(ii) and 3(ii) of the request. I
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 43; FOI 44
View Gateshead Council
23 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about two people convicted of various offences in 1983. The Crown Prosecution Service withheld the information under section 40(2) (third party personal information) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, it also applied section 38 (health and safety) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service has applied section 40(2) of the FOIA appropriately to all of the information. The Commissioner does not require the Crown Prosecution Service to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
23 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to NHS England for information regarding a review into the deaths of people with mental health and learning difficulties at the Southern Health Trust as well as information on another review into the commissioning of services for people with learning difficulties and autism. NHS England failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request. 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 NHS England
23 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the performance of Domiciliary Care Service providers. Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemptions for commercial interests (section 43(2)), prohibitions on disclosure (section 44) and applied section 12 to some of the information because it considered that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the costs limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that Gateshead Council: Failed to demonstrate that section 44(1)(a) is engaged and, in relation to section 43(2), failed to demonstrate that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0180 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43; FOI 44
View Gateshead Council
23 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the London Borough of Lewisham (“the Council”) information concerning its No Recourse to Public Funds training material, guidance and other related documents. The Council wrote to the complainant and informed her that it was considering the application of section 36 to the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 1 as it has not issued a response to the request which is in compliance with FOIA and has breached section 10(1) by not doing so within 20 working days of receipt of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a response to the complainant’s request of 12 January 2016 which is in compliance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Lewisham Council
23 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multi-part request to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) requesting information relating to the prison estate population and the categorisation of prisoners. The MoJ refused to provide the requested information, citing section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit).The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied section 12. He requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Ministry of Justice
23 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of body worn camera footage and any other recorded information in respect of a road traffic collision in which he was involved. The Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) refused to confirm or deny holding the information by virtue of section 40(5)(a)(personal information). The Commissioner finds that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
23 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information about the kidnapping and death of four British citizens in Chechnya in 1998. The FCO provided the complainant with various press cuttings it held but sought to rely on the following exemptions within FOIA to withhold the remaining information: section 27(1)(a) – international relations; section 35(1)(a) – government policy; sections 38(1)(a) and (b) – health and safety; section 40(2) – personal data; section 41(1) – information provided in confidence; section 42(1) – legal professional privilege; section 43(2) – commercial interests. It also sought to rely on section 23(5) (security bodies) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any further information falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of the various exemptions cited by the FCO. He has also concluded that the FCO is entitled to r
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27; FOI 35; FOI 38; FOI 40; FOI 41
23 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made four separate requests to Dudley Metropolitan Council (the council) for information in relation to employment tribunal claims. The council provided some information but refused the remaining relying on section 12 of the FOIA as it considered providing any further information would exceed the appropriate cost limit. It also refused some information under section 40(1) of the FOIA as it was the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is able to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse these requests. As section 12 has been found to be engaged, the Commissioner has not gone on to assess the application of section 40(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also found that the council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA to the first request, as its response was provided outside the required 20 working days response time following the request being made. As the council has since provided its response, he does not require it to tak
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
View Dudley Council
22 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) regarding ownership of the intellectual property for the Watchkeeper unmanned aerial vehicle. The MOD provided the complainant with some information but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 26(1)(b) (defence), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(b). However, in handling the request the MOD breached section 17(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
22 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information about the activities and death of British citizen Helen Smith in Saudi Arabia in May 1979 that covered the period June 1981 to December 1981. The FCO argued that the request was vexatious because complying with it would place a grossly oppressive burden on it. It therefore refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that the FCO is entitled to refuse the request on this basis.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
21 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to referrals to Hertfordshire Children’s Services by Health Visitors. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertfordshire County 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 Hertfordshire County Council
21 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to referrals to Hertfordshire Children’s Services. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertfordshire County 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 Hertfordshire County Council
20 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) investigation into the death of Sandra Rivett and the subsequent disappearance of Lord Lucan. The MPS has confirmed that it holds information but has found it to be exempt from disclosure under sections 30(1) (investigations and proceedings) and section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to rely on section 30(1). No steps are required
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Metropolitan Police Service
20 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the number and types of transactions at a specific Post Office branch and information relating to local branches offering similar services. The Post Office refused to disclose the requested information under section 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Post Office correctly applied section 43(2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Post Office
20 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (“the Council”) relating to the employment contracts of two members of the Council’s staff. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further information relating to the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
20 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested dates relating to a specific building control application which were previously available online. The Commissioner’s decision is that Chester West and Chester Council has breached regulation 8 of the EIR. He requires the public authority to provide the requested dates for Building Control Application 03/01091/MUL free of charge to ensure compliance with the legislation. In this case the Information Commissioner has also issued Chester West and Chester Council with an enforcement notice ordering the organisation to make changes to the way it holds this information and makes it available to the public. The enforcement notice reference number is ENF0629097 and can be found on the enforcement page of our website.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
20 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all papers in relation to the recent NHS England decision not to fund Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) for Refractory Epilepsy as a specialised service. 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
20 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to highway safety inspections from the council. The council confirmed that it holds details of safety inspections on the roads requested by the complainant, together with a policy document regarding highway safety inspections. However, noting that the complainant has made an insurance claim for damage to her vehicle from a pot hole, it applied Regulation 12(5)(b) to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(b) to the information on the specific road requested, however it was not correct to apply the exception to its policy document; ‘Code of Practice for Safety Inspections on Borough Roads’. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the document ‘Code of Practice for Safety Inspections on Borough Roads’ to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
16 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the name(s) and contact details of specified employees of Bracknell Forest Council’s Children’s Leaving Care Service. Following the Information Commissioner’s intervention, the Council decided to disclose the details which the complainant seeks. The Council’s disclosure of the requested information means that it has now complied with section 1 of the FOIA. The disclosure was made after the twenty day compliance period had passed and therefore the Commissioner has decided that Bracknell Forest Council has breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bracknell Forest Council
16 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific planning application. East Hampshire District 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 East Hampshire District Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged and that it wrongly withheld the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld viability information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View East Hampshire District Council
16 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recorded information from Leeds City council which concerns its Taxi and Private Hire Licensing Department. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council is entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Leeds City Council
16 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested minutes and the name of attendees at a particular meeting between Jeremy Hunt and a group of health organisations. The DoH stated no minutes were held but considered the names of attendees should be withheld on the basis of section 35(1)(d) of the FOIA or section 40(2) for a limited number of the attendees. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the section 35(1)(d) exemption is engaged the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner does accept that section 40(2) has been correctly applied to withhold the names of two individuals that the DoH has specified. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the attendees at the meeting with the exception of the names of the two individuals the DoH has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold.
Exemptions cited: EIR 35(1)(d); FOI 40
View Department of Health and Social Care
16 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a series of requests to Cambridgeshire County Council (“the council”) for information relating to a historic planning application and the council’s management of the complainant’s related information requests. The council refused the requests under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”) and regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”). The complainant subsequently contested the council’s refusal. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly refused the requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. However the council provided its refusal notice out of time, and breached the requirement of section 17(1) of the FOIA and regulation 14(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0164 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/126/2017 (permission to appeal) refused.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); FOI 14; FOI 17
View Cambridgeshire County Council
16 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the King’s College London (“the College”) relating to the reasons why candidates who did not meet their offer grades in the academic years 2013 and 2014 were accepted onto the Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (“MBBS”) course. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College does not hold the information requested. The Commissioner requires the College to take no steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0163 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View King's College London
16 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Craven District Council which concerns Planning Application 63/2015/15792, for a mixed use development with access from the A629 and Carleton Road, Skipton. The complainant is particularly concerned about the extent of the direct consultation exercise which the Council carried out in respect of this application. The Commissioner’s decision is that Craven District Council has complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Craven District Council
16 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the sickness absence records and claims of gross misconduct of staff at specified care homes in Derbyshire. Derbyshire County Council refused to respond to two of the complainant’s requests in reliance on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s requests are vexatious and therefore the Council is entitled to refuse them in reliance on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Derbyshire County Council to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Derbyshire County Council