16 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Haringey Council a Comprehensive housing options appraisal for the Noel Park estate, prepared in 2015 by Homes for Haringey. Haringey Council confirmed it held the requested information but stated it was withholding it in its entirety under sections 36(2), 40(2) and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental within the meaning of the EIR and therefore should have been handled by Haringey Council under this legislative regime rather than FOIA. The Commissioner requires Haringey Council to reconsider and respond to the complainant’s request dated 26 October 2015 under the EIR. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0170 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)
View Haringey Council
16 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a request to South Gloucestershire Council (“the council”) for information about a specific planning application. The council disclosed information in response and also withheld some under the exception provided by regulation 12(5)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”). The complainant contested the council’s application of the exception and whether all relevant information had otherwise been disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b), and that no further relevant information is likely to be held. However the council failed to provide its refusal notice within 20 working days following the date of receipt of the request and therefore breached regulation 14(2). He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(2)(1)
View South Gloucestershire Council
16 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the annual management fee to be paid by Aylesbury Vale District Council to the Ambassador Theatre Group to run the Aylesbury Waterside Theatre. The Commissioner’s decision is that Aylesbury Vale District Council has incorrectly applied both the exemption for information provided in confidence at section 41 of the FOIA and the exemption where disclosure would prejudice commercial interests at section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the information requested at part 2a) of the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0172 disposed of by consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
16 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) information about referrals to FOS from non-disabled and disabled complainants, and complaints that have been upheld and not upheld. FOS says that it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA because to do so would exceed the appropriate cost/time limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that to comply with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and that FOS has correctly applied section 12(1) to the request. He also finds that FOS met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance with regards to the request. The Commissioner does not require FOS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
16 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a request to Aylesbury Vale District Council (“the council”) for information about legal advice received in respect of local ‘Neighbourhood Development Plans’. 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). However he has identified that the council breached regulation 5(1) by failing to consider the request under the EIR, and consequently also breached regulation 14 by failing to issue an EIR refusal notice. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14; EIR 5(1)
16 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the management of Aylesbury Waterside Theatre. Aylesbury Vale District Council refused the request, citing the exemptions for information provided in confidence (section 41) and prejudice to commercial interests (section 43(2)).The Commissioner’s decision is that Aylesbury Vale District Council has incorrectly applied both the exemption for information provided in confidence at section 41 of the FOIA and the exemption where disclosure would prejudice commercial interests at section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0171 disposed of by consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
15 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (“Ofsted”) information about the inspection of a training organisation. Ofsted disclosed some information to the complainant on the basis that it was his personal data. It applied section 40(1) to this information. It refused to provide the remaining information, citing the exemptions in sections 31 and 33. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted has correctly applied section 40(1) to the information that it has already disclosed to the complainant and that it has correctly applied section 31 to the remaining information. He therefore does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
15 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to contact in 2009 between the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, and the then Lord Chancellor/ Minister of Justice, Jack Straw. To date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (the MoJ) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe 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; FOI 17
View Ministry of Justice
15 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner has previously considered the decision of the Department for Education (DfE) to withhold some documents covered by requests made on 11 August 2014 for information relating to the proposal for the Independent Schools Standards (ISS) and the corresponding consultation exercise. On 21 July 2015 the Commissioner issued a decision notice under the reference FS50566201 in which he found that the DfE had correctly applied the exemptions to disclosure set out at section 35(1)(b) (ministerial communications) and sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. Referencing the passage of time that had elapsed since that decision, the complainant in this case has made a further request for the withheld information. With the exception of some information which has been disclosed, the DfE considered that the requested information continued to be exempt information under the exemptions previously cited but also stated that section 36(2)(c
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 36
View Department for Education
15 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested testing and approval documentation for a number of chain saws and brush cutters. The Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) refused the request under regulation 12(5)(a) – international relations, and 12(5)(c) – intellectual property rights. During the Commissioner’s investigation the VCA also applied the exception provided by regulation 12(5)(f) – interests of the person who provided the information, and, in respect of the names of junior officials, regulation 13 – third party personal data. The complainant has not contested the application of regulation 13. The Commissioner’s decision is the VCA is not entitled to rely on the exceptions provided by regulations 12(5)(a),(c) and (f). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the approval documentation for the six products referred to in the request, apart from the limited redactions of personal data relating the VCA’s officers. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0190 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(c); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Vehicle Certification Agency
15 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about incidents of sewage and flooding at a particular address. Thames Water initially withheld the information under regulation 13 of the EIR as it said the information was the personal data of third persons. It subsequently released the information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thames Water has contravened regulation 5(2) because it did not make the requested information available to the complainant within 20 working days. The information has now been released and the Commissioner does not require Thames Water to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Thames Water
15 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants have requested all papers held by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) relating to a criminal prosecution. BIS refused the request relying on the exemptions detailed in sections 30(1), 40(2), 21, 41 and 42. The Commissioner’s decision is that BIS is entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a)(i) to withhold the requested information. He does not require BIS to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Department for Business and Trade
15 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to NHS England for information about disruption to the NHS 111 telephone service. NHS England failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires NHS England 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; FOI 17
View NHS England
14 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Lewisham (the ‘Council’) about policies or internal guidance which covers the provision of accommodation to families with No Recourse to Public Funds (‘NRPF’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10 of the FOIA as it has failed to respond to the request for information. The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the request for information dated 8 July 2015.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Lewisham Council
14 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a complaint made against him and complaints he has made to Chesterfield Borough Council (‘the council’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Chesterfield Borough Council
14 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to Employment Tribunals brought against the London Borough of Haringey. The MoJ responded to the request but the complainant believed that the MoJ must hold further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no further relevant information is held. The Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
14 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for information concerning discussions with the US Department of Defence in relation to the use of RAF Croughton. The MOD provided some of the information requested but sought to hold the remainder on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a). Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2016/0176) dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
14 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about communications between the Chief Constables of Warwickshire and Lincolnshire Police for specified periods of time during 2015. Warwickshire Police relied on the exemptions at FOIA sections 31(3) (law enforcement), 40(5) (personal information) and 42(2) (legal professional privilege) to neither confirm nor deny holding the information requested. The Commissioner decided that Warwickshire Police had applied the section 31(3) FOIA exemption correctly in neither confirming nor denying holding the requested information. He therefore did not proceed to consider the section 40(5) and 42(2) FOIA exemptions. He did however find that the delay by the police in issuing a substantive response to the request breached section 17(1) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Warwickshire Police to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Warwickshire Police
14 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a request to Milton Keynes Council (“the council”) for information about the development of an area of land. The council provided a response. The complainant requested that the council provide an internal review. Despite the Commissioner’s intervention the council failed to conduct an internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to comply with the requirements of regulation 11(3) and 11(4) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”). The Commissioner requires the council conduct an internal review in respect of the request made on 14 July 2015 that complies with the requirements of regulation 11(3).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(3); EIR 11(4)
View Milton Keynes Council
14 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested transaction information that has taken place under the Spend Analysis and Recovery Framework from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office argued that this information was exempt from disclosure under section 43 and upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is not entitled to rely on section 43 as its basis for withholding this information for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose all the information it holds within the scope of the complainant’s request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0169 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Cabinet Office
14 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to contracts with G4S and Serco. The MoJ confirmed it holds the requested information but refused to disclose it citing sections 31(1)(a), (c) and (g) of the FOIA (law enforcement - prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime, to the administration of justice and to the exercise by any public authority of its functions respectively). The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that none of the exemptions are engaged. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to disclose the withheld information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0167 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Ministry of Justice
14 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information to the public authority in relation to the Government’s decision to introduce the High Income Benefit Charge which imposes a tax charge on high-income households claiming Child Benefit. The public authority withheld all of the disputed information on the basis of the exemption at section 35(1)(a) FOIA (formulation or development of government policy). It additionally withheld various parts of the disputed information on the basis of the exemptions at sections 31(1)(d) FOIA (prejudice to the assessment or collection of tax), and 42(1) FOIA (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was not entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(1)(a). However, the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 31(1)(d) and 42(1) to withhold the specific parts of the disputed information additionally considered exempt on the basis of the provisions in those sections of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 35; FOI 42
14 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Communities relating to a number of named individuals. The Department refused the requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA on the grounds that the requests were vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was entitled to rely on section 14(1) and does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
14 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding a discussion which had taken place. South Oxfordshire District Council disclosed information to him and explained that it did not hold any further information. Subsequently, South Oxfordshire District Council found further information and disclosed it. The complainant also complained that South Oxfordshire District Council was late in responding to his request and had not advised him of his right to appeal to the Commissioner. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, South Oxfordshire District Council does not hold any further information. He also considers that the request was dealt with promptly for the purposes of section 10 the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require South Oxfordshire District Council to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View South Oxfordshire District Council
14 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Syrian refugees. The Home Office failed to respond substantively to this request and in so doing breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. It is now required to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
13 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about how £75,000 of funding for children and young people’s mental health services had been allocated and utilised by Plymouth City Council (“the Council”). The Council responded to the request outside of the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner therefore considers that the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in its handling of this request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Plymouth City Council
13 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Manchester (the University) relating to the animals which were used for research purposes at the University. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University 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 University to issue a response under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View The University of Manchester
13 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information in relation to the safety of two buildings which had developed some noticeable structural defects following construction. The public authority disclosed most of the information requested and withheld a small amount of information on the basis of the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion), 12(5)(b) (adverse effect on the course of justice) and 12(3) (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exceptions at regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(3) to withhold the remaining information within the scope of the request. He has however found the authority in breach of the procedural requirement in regulation 11(4) of the EIR. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(3); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Stoke-on-Trent City Council
13 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of public access defibrillation locations held by South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Trust (“the Trust”). The Trust partially disclosed the list but withheld some of the locations on the basis of section 41. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to demonstrate the exemption is engaged in relation to the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the remaining locations of public access defibrillation sites.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
13 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning a planning application from the London Borough of Harrow (the ‘Council’). The Council informed the complainant that the requested information could be found in the public domain on its website. The Council also explained the planning validation process to the complainant as it understood this was part of the request. However when this aspect of the request was clarified, at internal review the Council confirmed that all the requested information which it holds is available on its website. The Commissioner’s decision is that Council is correct to refer the complainant to its website to access the requested information. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council does not hold any further information concerning this request and has correctly responded under regulations 12(4)(a) and 6(1)(b) of the EIR. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Harrow Council
13 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the number of gas escapes that Northern Gas Networks Limited (NGN) dealt with together with its policies for dealing with such escapes. NGN did not initially respond to the request. Therefore the complainant emailed NGN and asked it to carry out a review of its handling of the request under regulation 11. NGN has no record of having received that communication. As no review was conducted the complainant raised the matter with the Commissioner at which time NGN explained that it did not consider itself to be a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. However during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, as a gesture of good will, it did disclose the information that it identified as falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner considers that NGN is a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. It follows that it was required to deal with the request in accordance with regulations 5 and 11. NGN’s response to the re
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 2(2)(c); EIR 5(2)
View Northern Bank Limited
13 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested financial information relating to a particular High Court appeal. PATROL has confirmed that it holds the requested information but that it holds it solely on behalf of a parking adjudicator involved in the appeal. It says that since parking adjudicators are not public authorities, PATROL cannot be said to hold the information for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that PATROL does not hold the requested information for the purposes of the FOIA, and section 1 specifically. The Commissioner does not require PATROL to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
13 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to police injury pensions. Staffordshire Police refused this request on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police cited section 12(1) correctly so it was not obliged to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Staffordshire Police
13 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the transfer of medical records between NHS parties. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to respond to this request NHS England has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires NHS England to respond to the request of 31 October 2015.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
13 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to work carried out by a named Home Office official. The Home Office refused this request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 14(1) correctly so it was not obliged to comply with this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Home Office
13 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning its use of Equipment Interference (“EI”) from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any information by virtue of sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (national security), 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 31(3) (law enforcement). The Commissioner finds that sections 23(5) and 24(2) have been appropriately applied. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
13 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the detention in Immigration Removal Centres of women who have disclosed that they are pregnant. The Home Office failed to respond substantively to this request and in so doing breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA and it is now required to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
13 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (“the Council”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council issue a response to the request dated 25 November 2015.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Waltham Forest Council
13 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to illegal immigration via Scottish ports. The Home Office refused to disclose this information and cited the exemption provided by section 31(1)(e) (prejudice to the operation of the immigration controls) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(e) was cited correctly so the Home Office was not obliged to disclose this information. The Commissioner has also found, however, that the Home Office breached section 17(1) of the FOIA by delaying its response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31
View Home Office
13 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about bullying in the workplace. Portsmouth City Council (the “Council”) failed to respond to the request within the statutory time limit thereby breaching section 10(1) of the FOIA. A response has now been provided so no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Portsmouth City Council
13 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint he made about a specific restaurant to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s (“the Council”) Trading Standards department. The Council refused the request on the basis of section 30(1) of the FOIA as the information was part of an investigatory process. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the provisions of section 30(1)(b) of the FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Wirral Council
13 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a residential address. The Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) would neither confirm nor deny holding any information citing section 40(5)(b)(i)(personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
9 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to correspondence, communications (including emails) and meetings between the Prince of Wales and Hs2 Limited. Hs2 refused to disclose the requested information under section 37(1)(aa), 40(2) and 41 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hs2 has correctly applied section 37(1)(aa) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
9 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the transfer of Manchester Corporation's waterworks undertaking at Lake Thirlmere to United Utilities. United Utilities provided the complainant with relevant title numbers which it said could be obtained from HM Land Registry (HMLR). It said that it did not hold any further information under regulation 12(4)(a) EIR. The complainant considers that United Utilities holds a scheme relevant to the above transfer dated 31 August 1989. United Utilities has confirmed that it does not hold such a scheme. The Commissioner considers that United Utilities was correct to confirm that it does not hold a scheme relevant to the above transfer dated 31 August 1989 under regulation 12(4)(a) EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0156 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View United Utilities
9 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) for information that would be withheld in relation to a subject access request (SAR) he made under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has breached section 10(1) as it did not substantively respond to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a substantive response to the complainant which meets with its obligations under the Act.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
9 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Targeted Record Card Checks. NHS England refused to comply with the request under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) as it said it would exceed the cost limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England was correct to apply section 12 FOIA in his case. It also complied with its obligations under section 16 FOIA in relation to the way in which it dealt with this request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0148 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View NHS England
8 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has, on several occasions, requested information associated with the leasing of a property on behalf of the Conserve Africa Foundation by one of its former trustees. Herefordshire County Council (“the Council”) has responded to the complainant’s multi-part requests by providing information or explanations and it has advised him that it does not hold certain pieces of information where this is the correct response under the provisions of the FOIA. The complainant’s protracted correspondence has contained numerous requests for information which seek to go over ground already covered. On examination of this correspondence it is clear to the Commissioner that the complainant is repeating requests he has previously made which have been properly responded to by the Council and it is for this reason that the Commissioner has decided that the Council has appropriately applied section 14(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Herefordshire Council
8 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the names of companies with a particular consumer credit licence. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) released information relating to firms to which the FCA has given interim permission. It has applied the exemption at section 21(3) of the FOIA to information it holds about firms with full permission. The FCA is withholding this information because it says it is already reasonably accessible to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA has correctly applied section 21(3) to the withheld information. He does not require the FCA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Financial Conduct Authority
8 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a full copy of a ‘due diligence’ report created by accountants KPMG into the council’s potential acquisition of Liverpool Direct Limited, a company which it jointly owned with British Telecom (BT). The council initially applied the exemption in section 36 of the Act (effective conduct of public affairs), section 43 (commercial interests) and section 41 (information provided in confidence). In the review it decided that neither section 43 nor section 41 were applicable, but maintained its position as regards the application of section 36 to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 36 to the information however the public interest in the disclosure of the information outweighs that in the exemption being maintained. The Commissioner has also decided that the council did not comply with section 17 of the Act in its initial response, and its response which did meet the requirements of section 17 did not
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36
View Liverpool City Council
8 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the dates of interviews and names of those interviewed in relation to an inquiry into the leaking of a memo from the Scottish Office to the Daily Telegraph. The Cabinet Office cited section 31 (Law enforcement exemption) as its basis for refusal and upheld this at internal review. It also cited section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data) and section 38 (prejudice to health and safety).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 31 and section 40 as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office