23 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about whether the GMC had received complaints about a particular doctor. The GMC refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC was correct to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC
23 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a complaint to the Charity Commission about a named charity. He subsequently requested a copy of the response which the charity had provided to the Charity Commission in response to those allegations. The Charity Commission refused the request under section 31 on the basis that its disclosure would prejudice its ability to investigate such complaints. During the course of the Information Commissioner’s investigation additional information was released. However some information was still withheld under section 40(2) – third party personal data. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold that information. The Information Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The Charity Commission
23 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on who advised the Health Secretary about a report published in the British Medical Journal on the increased mortality associated with weekend hospital admissions. The Department of Health (DoH) withheld the information under sections 35(1)(a) – information relating to the formulation of government policy, and 35(1)(d) – information relating to the administration of a ministerial private office. The Commissioner’s decision is that although section 35(1)(a) is engaged, the public interest in maintaining it does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 35(1)(d) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority communicate the requested information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0140 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
23 May 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (“Defra”) relating to Prince’s Consent. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and section 12(1) and section 12(2) of the FOIA to the request. However, Defra has breached regulation 5(2) and section 10 as it failed to provide a response to the request within 20 working days. Defra has also breached regulation 11 as it failed to provide an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires Defra to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2); FOI 10; FOI 12
19 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Trinity Hall (“the College”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the College correctly applied section 14(1) to the requests. The Commissioner requires the College to take no steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0173 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/887/2017 (permission to appeal) refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
19 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an awarding body’s regulation of a training company. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofqual failed to provide a response to the request. This constitutes a breach of section 10 of FOIA which requires that a public authority responds to a request within twenty working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a response under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation
19 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics about arrests for threats to kill the Mayor of London. The Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) would neither confirm nor deny holding any information by virtue of sections 40(5) (personal information) and 30(3) (investigations and proceedings). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5) is engaged and he has not therefore found it necessary to consider section 30(3). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
19 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information concerning the negotiations between the UK and Faroes/Denmark during the 1990s that led to the Maritime Delimitation Agreement in 1999. The FCO provided the complainant with some of the information falling within the scope of his request but refused to provide the remainder citing the exemptions contained at the following sections of FOIA: 27(1)(a) and (c), 27(2) (international relations), 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner has found that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), 27(1)(c) and section 40(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40
19 May 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics covering ethnicity and misconduct / dismissal. The Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) advised that to comply with the request would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 12(1), however, he finds that it breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time for compliance. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
View Metropolitan Police Service
19 May 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a named individual, who died in 1985. The Home Office stated that it did not hold information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office stated correctly that it did not hold the requested information, but also that the Home Office handled the request poorly and in so doing breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
18 May 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of referrals from West Midlands Police (WMP) to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) relating to the 1974 Birmingham Pub Bombings. WMP identified a single referral form within the scope of the request and withheld it from disclosure under the exemption provided by section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP cited section 40(2) correctly so it was not obliged to disclose this information. WMP did, however, breach section 17(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View West Midlands Police
18 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a named individual who was part of an aircrew that deserted from the German air force and flew to an RAF base in May 1943. The Home Office stated that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office stated correctly and in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA that it did not hold the requested information and so he does not require it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
18 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the university to disclose the training material used to train a particular therapist. Initially, the university refused to disclose this information citing section 43 of the FOIA. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation the university decided to disclose the requested information to the complainant and withdraw its previous reliance on section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner has reviewed how the requested was handled and he has recorded a breach of section 10 of the FOIA in this case. Overall, however, he requires no further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View University of Southampton
18 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) justification for state aid clearance submitted to the European Commission (the Commission) in respect of the EU’s consideration of the pricing methodology for Waste Transfer Contracts (WTCs) to be concluded between the UK government and operators of new nuclear power plants. DECC responded refusing to disclose the requested information citing regulations 12(5)(a) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that DECC has acted appropriately by refusing to disclose the requested information under regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0154 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Department of Energy & Climate Change
18 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning whether two Home Office employees had completed specified e-learning courses. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 40(5) correctly so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
17 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for information about Lloyds Banking Group and what he said was possible involvement or complicity in fraud committed by a named individual. In response the FCA refused to confirm or deny if the requested information was held under section 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure) and section 43(3) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 44(2) was correctly applied and the FCA was not obliged to confirm or deny if the requested information was held. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
17 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any police action taken over comments allegedly made by a juror at his trial. Avon and Somerset Police (“the Constabulary”) stated that it did not hold any information which fell within the scope of the request. The Information Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Constabulary does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Avon and Somerset Police
17 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an investigation into the Leader of Cheshire East Council’s Twitter account. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire East Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA. He does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cheshire East Council
17 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to applications for exemption from Notices of Intended Prosecution (“NIPS”) issued against emergency response vehicles for traffic violations. Greater Manchester Police (“the Constabulary”) has not responded to the request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA in that it has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the Constabulary to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Greater Manchester Police
17 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) on the administration processes of payments to civil servants in the Palestinian Authority. The FCO confirmed that it holds information relevant to the request. It repeatedly advised the complainant that it required further time to consider the public interest test. To date, the FCO has failed to provide the complainant with a substantive response. By failing to do so, the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO has breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a substantive response to his information request. If the FCO decides to withhold any information then the complainant should be provided with a refusal notice giving the full explanation as to why the information will not be disclosed, including details of any public interest test consideration.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
17 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specific files from The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO’s) ‘Special Collections’. The FCO confirmed that it holds information relevant to the request. It repeatedly advised the complainant that it required further time to consider the public interest test. To date, the FCO has failed to provide the complainant with a substantive response. By failing to do so, the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO has breached section 17(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a substantive response to his information request. If the FCO decides to withhold any information then the complainant should be provided with a refusal notice giving the full explanation as to why the information will not be disclosed, including details of any public interest test consideration.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
16 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recorded information which concerns an on-going claim against the Hertfordshire County Council (“the Council”). The Council has endeavoured to provide the complainant with answers to many of the questions he has raised, and in many instances it has satisfied the complainant’s information requirements. There are however a number of instances where the Council has failed to provide the complainant with copies of the recorded information it holds, particularly in relation to parts (e) to (h) of the complainant’s request of 12 January 2015. In respect of those parts of the complainant’s request, the Commissioner has decided that the Council has breached section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to revisit parts (e) to (h) of the complainant’s request and provide a fresh response that complies with the Act.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Hertfordshire County Council
16 May 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested all information about a listed building held by named officials. The Council initially dealt with the request under FOIA and refused the request under section 12 on the basis the cost of compliance would exceed the cost limit. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council recognised that the request should have been handled under the EIR and so refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) – manifestly unreasonable, again, on the basis would cost too much to comply with. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wakefield Council is entitled to rely on the regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. However as it did not apply this exception within the twenty working days the Council has breached regulation 14(2). The Commissioner is also not satisfied that the Council initially provided adequate advice and assistance aimed at enabling the complainant to make a refined request, as required by regulation 9. However during the Commissioner’s inv
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 9
16 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to inspections at Wood Treatment Ltd, Bosley. Cheshire East Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for the course of justice, regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire East Council has correctly withheld the information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps in this case. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0149 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Cheshire East Council
16 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested reports and recommendations released to Kent Police by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) concerning an incident in which an individual died whilst being restrained by the police. The IPCC partially refused this request and withheld some of the requested information under the exemption provided by section 30(1)(a)(i) (information held for the purposes of an investigation) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IPCC cited section 30(1)(a)(i) correctly and so it was not obliged to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
16 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the standards of service that can be expected by a tenant of furnished accommodation provided by Sheffield City Council (‘the council’). The council refused to comply with the request relying on section 21 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 21 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Sheffield City Council
16 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to documents between the Government Legal Department (GLD) and the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) in relation to the complainant’s status as a vexatious litigant. The Commissioner’s decision is that GLD breached section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) because it did not issue a response to one of the complainant’s requests. The GLD also breached section 10(1) as it did not respond within the statutory timeframe. Regarding whether the GLD provided all of the relevant information it holds, the Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probability it is unlikely that any information relevant to these requests is held by the GLD.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Government Legal Department
16 May 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the amount and subject matter of emails sent and received by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or his office between June 2013 and June 2015. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) correctly relied on section 12 (cost limit) not to provide the requested information to the complainant. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the DWP breached section 16 by failing to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant when refusing his request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0150 part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
16 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a chain of emails which passed between a small number of senders and recipients during October 2013, under the subject heading of ‘Wightlink Support’. The Isle of Wight disclosed the emails it holds to the complainant but withheld the names of some of their senders and recipients. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Isle of Wight Council has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the information it withheld from the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Isle of Wight Council
16 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Crown Commercial Service’s (CCS) ‘contract finder’ website search facility. The Cabinet Office – the public authority who is responsible for requests made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) to the CCS – confirmed that information was held and that it engaged section 43(2) of the Act. This response also stated that it needed further time to consider the balance of the public interest. To date, the Cabinet Office has failed to provide the complainant the outcome of the public interest test. By failing to do so the Cabinet Office breached section 17(3) of the Act. The Cabinet Office has also breached section 17(1) because it took longer than 20 working days to issue its initial refusal notice to the complainant longer following receipt of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the outcome of the public interest test for his information request. If the Cabinet Office
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Cabinet Office
16 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the outsourcing of pensions administration. Staffordshire Police and Crime Commissioner (the PCC) failed to respond to this request and the Commissioner’s decision is that in so doing it breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The PCC is now required to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
12 May 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to allegations of child sexual abuse allegations made against Cyril Smith. The Crown Prosecution Service withheld some information under the exemptions at sections 21(1) (information accessible to applicant by other means) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. It also relied on the provisions in sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) and 24(2) (national security) of the FOIA as the basis for neither confirming nor denying whether it held any information in scope subject to the exemptions at sections 23(1) and 24(1). The Commissioner considers that the Crown Prosecution Service has applied sections 23(5) and 24(2) and 40(2) appropriately but has not applied section 21 appropriately. He also considers that the Crown Prosecution Service has breached section 17(1). However, as the complainant is in possession of all of the information which is not correctly exempt from disclo
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
12 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request to United Utilities (UU) for information relating to the work being undertaken on behalf of United Utilities in Eccleston, St Helens. UU refused to comply with the request as it considers that some information is not held under regulation 12(4)(a) and that in any event the request is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) EIR. It also applied regulation 12(4)(c) and 12(5)(f) EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the information requested is held by UU under regulation 12(4)(a) EIR (apart from part 13 of the request in relation to which it would be manifestly unreasonable to determine what is held). UU has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) EIR to the request in its entirety. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View United Utilities
12 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department for Transport (DfT) for a copy of the Appeals Criteria Document used by the Independent Appeals Service when assessing appeals against penalty fares issued by Train Operating Companies. The DfT refused the request under the exemptions in section 31(1)(c) (law enforcement), section 41 (information provided in confidence), section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 44 (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 44 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Department for Transport
12 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an eight-part request for information about harassment and bullying complaints in the workplace. Rutland County Council (the ‘Council’) provided some information, but refused the remainder citing sections 40(2) of FOIA, personal information, and 12, the cost exclusion. The complainant was concerned only with the Council’s reliance on section 40(2) which was applied to parts 2 to 6 of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of FOIA to parts 2 to 6 of the request, as the withheld information is sufficiently anonymised to take it out of the definition of personal data. He therefore requires the Council to disclose the withheld information as provided to the Commissioner for parts 2 to 6 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Rutland County Council
12 May 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Gender Recognition Panel (GRP) including the list of names of the people who sit, or have sat, on that Panel. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it holds some of the requested information but refused to provide it citing sections 32(1)(c) (court records) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s application of section 40(2). His decision is that the MoJ correctly applied section 40(2) to the majority of the information withheld by virtue of that exemption. However, a small part of the withheld information is not exempt under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the MoJ disclose a small part of the withheld information that is set out in the Confidential Annex to this Notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
12 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to egg donation. The HFEA provided some information but withheld some information under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HFEA has correctly applied section 44 (1)(a) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
12 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an alleged informant. West Yorkshire Police neither confirmed nor denied holding the information, citing the exemptions at section 23(5) (security bodies) and section 24(2) (national security) in the alternative as its basis for doing so. It also cited 30(3) (investigations) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Police has applied sections 23(5) and 24(2) in the alternative, appropriately to the requested information. The Commissioner does not require West Yorkshire Police to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View West Yorkshire Police
12 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the ownership of two parcels of land in connection with arrangements for draining surface water from a development site. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ryedale District Council (the council) did not hold the information requested and that it has applied Regulation 12(4)(a) correctly. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to comply with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0152 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
12 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the closed files on the tax affairs of Ian Fleming. The National Archives (TNA) refused to provide the information, citing the exemption section 41 of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View The National Archives
11 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various documents relating to the decision to award a contract for elective care services. The public authority aggregated parts of the request as it would exceed the cost limit to respond but did disclose some information with redactions made under section 43(2) as well as withholding scoring information and tender documents under this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied section 43(2) to the withheld information and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. He requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
11 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about adoption procedures. Worcestershire County Council (‘the Council’) has refused to comply with the request which it says is vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and that the Council is correct not to comply with it. He does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/284/2017 (permission to appeal) refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Worcestershire County Council
10 May 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about court costs and summonses from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). It handled part 1 of the request outside the FOIA; it said it did not hold the information requested in part 2; it relied on the cost exclusion in section 12(2) in relation to part 3 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ should have handled part 1 of the request under the FOIA. He finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOJ does not hold the information requested in parts 1 and 2 of the request. He has also found that the MOJ correctly relied on section 12(1) in refusing to provide the requested information in part 3 of the request. However, the MOJ failed to provide its response within the statutory 20 working days framework and thereby breached section 17(1) of the FOIA. In addition, the MOJ breached section 16 of the FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with advice and assistance as to how she might refine her request with a view to bri
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17; FOI 8
View Ministry of Justice
10 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for information which had been retained from a number of different files when the files had been transferred to The National Archives. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose the requested information relying on the exemptions contained at sections 23 (security bodies) and 24 (national security). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of either section 23(1) or section 24(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
10 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from St Cuthbert’s C of E Infants’ School (the ‘School’) information relating to correspondence between Governors and the School. The School refused the information on the basis that the request is vexatious in accordance with section 14 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the School has correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA to refuse the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the School to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
10 May 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on any meetings between the Chair of a Pay Review Body and politicians/civil servants to discuss the document on doctors and dentists contract reform. The Department of Health identified a number of documents including briefings, minutes and information provided to oral evidence sessions which it considered exemption on the basis of section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH has correctly applied the section 35(1)(a) exemption and balanced the public interest appropriately to withhold the majority of this information. However, he finds the public interest favours disclosure in relation to the information contained in two documents. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information contained in the following two documents: (2) PSH brief for meetings with Chair of the Pay Review Bodies – Sept 2014; and (1) PSP brief for meet
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
10 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted to a request to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) for all guidance and correspondence received and sent by the Attorney General which related to the creation of the ministerial veto which was issued to prohibit the release, under FOIA, of The Prince of Wales’ correspondence with government departments. The AGO refused to disclose the information on basis of sections 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy); 35(1)(b) (Ministerial communications); and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The AGO also relied on section 35(3) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held advice provided by the Law Officers or requests for such advice. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemptions cited by the AGO. He has also concluded that the AGO is entitled to rely on section 35(3) in manner that it did.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 42
View Attorney General's Office
10 May 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Mail on Sunday’s story about Lord Janner published on 21 June 2015. The Commissioner’s decision, on the balance of probabilities, is that the CPS does not hold the requested information. However, as the CPS issued its response more than 20 working days after receiving the request, it breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the CPS to take any remedial actions to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Crown Prosecution Service
10 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for information which had been retained from a number of different files when the files had been transferred to The National Archives. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose the requested information relying on the exemptions contained at sections 23 (security bodies), 24 (national security), 26 (defence), 27 (international relations) and 40 (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of either section 23(1) or section 24(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
10 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked for information relating to visa applications. The Home Office stated that it was unable to establish whether it held this information within the cost limit and therefore refused the request under section 12(2) (costs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 12(2) correctly and so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Home Office