8 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about guidelines in relation to a number of mobile speed camera sites and the name and contact details of the person who authorised the use of two specific sites. South Wales Police stated it did not hold some of the information requested, one request did not constitute a valid request and applied section 14(1) to two requests which it considered vexatious. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, South Wales Police withdrew reliance on section 14(1) in relation to one request and applied section 40(2) in the alternative. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Wales Police does not hold some of the information requested and that one of the requests was not valid as per section 8 of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also determined that South Wales Police has correctly applied section 40(2) to one request and section 14(1) to another request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14; FOI 40; FOI 8
View South Wales Police
8 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a request to Gloucestershire County Council (“the council”) for information about a pothole that the complainant had photographed. 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), and has complied with the requirements of regulation 9(1). He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Gloucestershire County Council
8 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a reinvestigation into a complaint ordered by the Independent Police Complaints Commissioner (‘IPCC’), and the name and contact details of the person dealing with his information request. South Wales Police provided some information and confirmed that it did not hold any additional information. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Wales Police does not hold the information requested. However in relation to one of the requests, in failing to deny that it held any recorded information within 20 working days South Wales Police breached section 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View South Wales Police
8 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to the investigation which followed the leak of a Scotland Office memo prior to the general election of 2015. The Cabinet Office refused to provide it citing provisions of section 31 (law enforcement) as its basis for doing so and section 21 (information available to the requester). The complainant challenged its use of section 31 and the Cabinet Office upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on the provisions of section 31 it has cited as its basis for refusing to provide the information in question. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Cabinet Office
8 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to any complaint made by the DoH to the BBC in relation to news coverage in any way since 1 April 2014. The DoH refused to disclose the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA was applied incorrectly to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under section 36(2)(b)(ii).
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department of Health and Social Care
8 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). The Commissioner’s decision is that Winchester City Council (WCC) has provided the complainant with all the information it holds and has therefore correctly cited regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. However, the Commissioner notes that WCC has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by not providing its response within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Winchester City Council
8 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a report into the way Wiltshire Police dealt with complaints about the handling of sexual abuse allegations. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) refused to disclose this information and relied on the exemption provided by section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IPCC cited section 40(2) correctly in relation to the majority of the content of the report. However, he also finds that, by redacting names, some of the content of the report is rendered not personal data of any individual and so section 40(2) is not engaged in relation to that content. The IPCC is now required to disclose that content, with the names of individuals redacted. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0162 disposed of by consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
8 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of all of the schools that fall into each of the categories of the council’s risk assessment of Norfolk schools. Norfolk County Council confirmed it held the requested information but refused to provide it citing sections 33(1) (audit functions), 36(2)(b)(i) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice), 36(2)(b)(ii) (inhibition to the free and frank exchange of views), and 36(2)(c) (prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 33(1) and 36(2)(c) are not engaged and that while sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) are engaged, the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0161 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33; FOI 36
View Norfolk County Council
7 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a student he believes attended the University. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was correct to apply section 40(2) to some of the requested information. He therefore does not require the University to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0157 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The University of Westminster
7 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on behalf of a client, relating to the development of a neighbouring private property. Borough of Poole (“the Council”) disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing the non-disclosure exceptions at regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications), and 12(5)(b) (course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely upon the exceptions at regulation 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) to withhold information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose to the complainant the documents withheld under regulation 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) (that is, documents 15, 19, 31, 32, 34, 42, 43, 44, 45, 54, 57 and 58), taking care to redact any personal data the disclosure of which would breach the Data Protection Act 1998.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
7 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the return of a fugitive to the UK. Staffordshire Police refused this request under the exemptions provided by sections 30(1) (information held for the purposes of an investigation) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has exercised his discretion to consider section 40(5) (personal information). His decision is that section 40(5) is engaged and that Staffordshire Police should have refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner has also found that Staffordshire Police breached section 17(5) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant within 20 working days of receipt of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Staffordshire Police
6 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a meeting held to discuss the authority’s dealings with him. The Welsh Government stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the requested information, if held, would constitute the personal data of the complainant and would therefore be exempt under section 40(1). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Welsh Government
2 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about named persons she believed to be associated with, or employed by, Kent Police. The police refused to confirm or deny holding the information requested, relying on the exemption at section 40(5) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the police had cited section 40(5) correctly and so were not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/198/2017 (permission to appeal) refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Kent Police
2 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails between a professor of the University of Cambridge (the “University”) and named individuals. The University has explained it does not hold these emails for its own purposes under the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is correct when it states it does not hold the requested emails to any extent for its own purposes. No further steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The University of Cambridge
2 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the use of Thai speaking interpreters by West Midlands Police (WMP). WMP refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 30(3) (information held for the purposes of an investigation) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP cited section 30(3) correctly so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner also, however, finds that WMP breached the FOIA through failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 30
View West Midlands Police
2 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the use of Thai speaking interpreters by West Midlands Police (WMP). WMP refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 30(3) (information held for the purposes of an investigation) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP cited section 30(3) correctly so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner also, however, finds that WMP breached the FOIA through failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0159 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 30
View West Midlands Police
1 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of programmes on LGBT issues. 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
1 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the details of two particular posts within the Council which have responsibilities in respect of children in its care. The Council dealt with the request in respect to one of the post holders, but only communicated the information about the other post-holder during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. This was due to a misunderstanding over the scope of the request. By failing to provide the requested information within twenty working days the Commissioner finds that the Council has breached section 10. However, as the Council has now provided the information in question the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Wolverhampton City Council
1 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes and the name of attendees at a particular meeting between the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Health (DoH) and the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS). 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: FOI 35(1)(d); FOI 40(2)
View Department of Health and Social Care
1 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes and the name of attendees at a particular meeting between Jeremy Hunt and the Academy of Medical Royal College (AoMRC). 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 one individual 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 name of the one individual the DoH has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(d); FOI 40(2)
View Department of Health and Social Care
1 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes and the name of attendees at a particular meeting between Jeremy Hunt and Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC). 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 three 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 three individuals the DoH has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(d); FOI 40(2)
View Department of Health and Social Care
1 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes and the name of attendees at a particular meeting between the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Health (DoH) and the General Medical Council (GMC). 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. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the section 35(1)(d) exemption is engaged the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the attendees at the meeting.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(d)
View Department of Health and Social Care
1 Jun 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes and the name of attendees at a particular meeting between Jeremy Hunt and the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS). 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: FOI 35(1)(d); FOI 40(2)
View Department of Health and Social Care
1 Jun 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various items of information in respect of the Welsh Government’s Major Events Unit support for food festivals. The Council refused to provide the information withholding it by virtue of section 21 and section 29(1)(b) of the FOIA. However, following the Commissioner’s investigation, it subsequently disclosed the requested information to the complainant. The complainant is not satisfied with the Council’s procedural handling of her request, and in particular the delay in receiving the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government breached section 10 of the FOIA, however, as the information has now been provided to the complainant, he does not require the Welsh Government to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Welsh Government
1 Jun 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of minutes of a meeting held on 15 November 2014 at The Flash Leisure Centre and various information regarding taxi journeys from Welshpool High School to Llanidloes High School. Powys County Council informed the complainant that it did not hold the above information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Powys County Council has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Powys County Council
31 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to briefings prepared for the Home Secretary in April and May 2015 relating to Greville Janner. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice and exchange of views)) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(i) in this case and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Home Office
31 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the names of individuals that hold Elver licenses. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Environment Agency (“EA”) has correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the EA to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Environment Agency
31 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to complaints made about councillors. The Commissioner’s decision is that Warwick District Council (WDC) has breached section 10 (1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Warwick District Council
26 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a statement given by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (the Council). This said that a series of renegotiations on property deals had secured more than £50 million of extra funding for borough residents, part of which would be used to deliver 231 new affordable homes. The Council has dealt with the requests under FOIA and stated that parts of the requested information is not held, provided other parts, and withheld financial figures relating to two developments pursuant to the ‘commercial confidentiality’ (section 43(2)) exemption to disclosure in FOIA. The complainant has disputed both the Council’s use of section 43(2) of FOIA and its assertion that some of the requested information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information being requested is environmental information and therefore the EIR and not FOIA is the applicable access legislation. He therefore requires the Council to issue a new response
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)(c)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
26 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (“the Council”) broadly relating to affordable housing and new developments given planning consent by the Council. The Council has dealt with the requests under the FOIA and stated that parts of the requested information is not held, provided other parts, and explained section 21 applied to the remaining information. The complainant disputed the Council’s assertion that some of the requested information was not held and that some information was reasonably accessible on the Council’s website. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information being requested is environmental information and therefore the EIR and not FOIA is the applicable access legislation. He therefore requires the Council to issue a new response to the requests under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)(c)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
26 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Enfield Council (the Council) regarding information relating to Winchmore Hill Road and queries relating to highway services. The Council provided the information within the 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Enfield Council
26 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for a copy of the letter proposing that Robert Kerslake be made a life peer and the letter in which this proposal was accepted. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose the requested information on the basis of section 37(1)(b) of FOIA which provides an exemption for information which relates to the conferring of an honour or dignity. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 37(1)(b) but that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure of the information. The Cabinet Office must therefore disclosure the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
26 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (the ‘Council’) information relating to a named visitor centre and its planning permission granted in 2006. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0151 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
26 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department for Education (DfE) copies of communications relating to an emergency inspection of a school carried out by the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI). The DfE considered that it was not obliged to disclose the information caught by the scope of the request under the ‘information reasonably accessible to an applicant’ (section 21) and ‘prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs’ (sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and section 36(2)(c)) exemptions to disclosure in FOIA. The complainant has asked the Commissioner to consider whether the DfE was entitled to withhold the items of information to which it had applied the exemptions in section 36(2). On inspection, some of the information was found to be the complainant’s personal data and therefore the Commissioner has instructed the DfE to consider this under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) rather than FOIA. For the remaining material that did not fall under this description, the Com
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
26 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information about the guidance provided to intelligence officers and personnel applicable to the passing of intelligence relating to individuals who are at risk of targeted lethal strikes outside traditional battlefields. The FCO refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information on the basis of sections 23(5) (security bodies) and section 24(2) (national security) of FOIA. The FCO also declined to provide its reasoning to the complainant for relying on these exemptions citing section 17(4) of FOIA as a basis upon which to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCO is entitled to rely on both sections 23(5) and 24(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. Furthermore the Commissioner has also concluded that disclosure of the FCO’s rationale for relying on these exemptions would involve the disclosure of information that is itself exempt
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 24
26 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) relating to spend data. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 22 is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information requested on 16 December 2015.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Southwark Council
25 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the average size of a prison cell, including those in HMP Leeds and HMP Wakefield. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold the requested information. He requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
25 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to unreconciled payments on account (POA) of legal work to law firms in legally aided cases. The MoJ ultimately refused to provide the requested information citing section 12 (cost of compliance) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 12 as its basis for refusing to respond to the request. It has also provided adequate advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 of the FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0153 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
25 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to officers issued with misconduct / gross misconduct notices. Lincolnshire Police provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lincolnshire Police is entitled to rely on section 40(2) and is not obliged to disclose the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Lincolnshire Police
25 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the policing and any court related costs incurred by Thames Valley Police (TVP) in relation to a specified alleged incident. TVP would neither confirm nor deny holding the information requested, citing the 30(3) (criminal investigations) and 40(5) (personal information) FOIA exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 30(3) FOIA exemption is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He therefore decided that TVP was entitled to rely on the exemption and he requires no steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Thames Valley Police
25 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to prison officer dismissals, broken down by reason for dismissal, within a specified timeframe. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 44(1) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exemption is engaged in this case. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to disclose the information withheld by virtue of those exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 44
View Ministry of Justice
23 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of emails and correspondence regarding an earlier request for information which she had made which the council was still considering. The council refused the request on the basis that section 14 of the Act applies. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply section 14 in this instance. He has also decided that the council breached section 10(1) of the Act in that it did not respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to consider the request as required by section 1 of the Act without applying section 14.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Liverpool City Council
23 May 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the council relating to an incident at Whipsnade Zoo. The council confirmed that the information was held but said that it was exempt under section 30(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 30(1) to some information, however other information should have been disclosed in response to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information outlined in the confidential annex to this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Central Bedfordshire Council
23 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding equality impact assessments in respect of grants received by the museum service since 2011. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council has correctly applied the vexatious provision at section 14(1) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0155 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Leeds City Council
23 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding equality impact assessments in respect of grants received by the museum service since 2011 and information regarding plans to spend Arts Council England funding received by the museum service under the Major Partners Programme. The Commissioner considers that these requests relate to the same matter as a previous decision notice and that the analysis and conclusions reached in that previous notice are applicable in this instance. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council has correctly applied the vexatious provision at section 14(1) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Leeds City Council
23 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Public Duty Costs Allowance (PDCA) guidance from the Cabinet Office. This request was subject to considerable delay as detailed in this Notice and in a previous decision notice which specifically addressed the timeliness of the Cabinet Office’s initial handling of the request. Eventually, the Cabinet Office relied on exemptions in section 36 of the FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. It upheld this position at internal review. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it withdrew reliance on these exemptions and disclosed the information to the complainant. The complainant subsequently noticed that the information was freely available online and drew this to the Commissioner’s attention. The Commissioner’s decision is that that the Cabinet Office should have provided the information described in the request to the complainant upon request and contr
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
23 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) about a ‘manual’ referred to by HMRC in response to an earlier request. The request was dated 5 December 2015 and at the time of this notice HMRC has yet to respond to the request for information. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC breached section 10 of the FOIA in that it has failed to provide a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a substantive response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or – to the extent that requested information is exempt from disclosure - issuing a valid refusal notice, including the outcome of any public interest considerations.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
23 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of a redacted sentence which relates to him which was recorded in an interview by a third party. The council applied section 40(2) to the information. The Commissioner’s decision is however that section 40(1) was applicable as the information is the requestor’s own personal data. The Commissioner does not require the authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Chichester District Council
23 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding deceased former ESA claimants and the government’s work programme. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP’s reliance on section 44 to withhold the requested information was incorrect. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the requested information it holds.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Department for Work and Pensions
23 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Cumberland Infirmary Ophthalmic Department. North Cumbria University Hospital Trust (the Trust) responded to the request outside of the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner considers that the Trust breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust