10 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about permitted distances between streetlights in Flintshire and a map showing the location and measurements of streetlights in a specific location. Flintshire County Council (‘the Council’) provided some information and confirmed other information was not held. During the course of the Commissioner’s information, the Council disclosed some additional information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the specific information requested by the complainant. The Commissioner also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under regulation 9 to provide appropriate advice and assistance. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5; EIR 9
View Flintshire County Council
10 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning plans for the placement of Syrian refugees. The Home Office refused this request under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 40(2) incorrectly and it is now required to comply with the request. The Commissioner also found that the Home Office breached section 17(1) of the FOIA in this case through its failure to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond afresh to the complainant, disclosing the answers required by the first and third parts of the request and seeking clarification about the second part of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Home Office
9 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of legal advice from Portsmouth City Council (the “Council”). Outside the time limit for providing a response, the Council advised him that it was available to view at the Council Offices and was therefore exempt by virtue of section 21(1) (information accessible to applicant by other means). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council provided the requested information directly to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10(1) by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time limit. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Portsmouth City Council
9 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In eight, multi-part requests submitted to the Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC) in November 2015 and on 15 December 2015 the complainant has requested information about aspects of its administration. The NMC has refused to comply with the requests which it says are vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NMC has correctly applied section 14(1) to the requests and is not obliged to comply with them. He does not require the NMC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View NMC
9 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an internal audit report. West Sussex County Council has withheld the information which it says is exempt from disclosure under section 36(2)(b) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that West Sussex County Council has correctly applied section 36(2)(c) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He does not require West Sussex County Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View West Sussex County Council
9 May 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) for a copy of leaseholder application forms for loan/charging orders in respect of debts for major works/service charge used between 2010-2015. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the complainant refined her request to "a copy of the leaseholder application forms for loans in respect of debts for major works/service charge used between 2013-2015". The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose a copy of leaseholder application forms for loans in respect of debts for major works/service charge used between 2013–2015 with information detailed at paragraph 3 redacted. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Southwark Council
9 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Hillingdon (“the Council”) broadly relating to planning applications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1) to the information that falls under the FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) to the information that falls under the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); FOI 14
View Hillingdon Council
9 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames (“the Council”) relating to emails between two individuals. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Richmond upon Thames Council
9 May 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the provision of kosher food for Orthodox Jewish prisoners. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) provided the recorded information it held relevant to the request. During the investigation, the MOJ confirmed it should instead have relied on section 21 of FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means) for parts 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the request, because it said the information requested is available to the complainant in the prison library. For part 4, it provided the information it held in recorded form and also some discretionary information following enquiries with the Head of Catering at the specified prison. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOJ has provided all the recorded information it holds relevant to the request, where that information is not covered by section 21 of FOIA. He finds that the MOJ properly relied on section 21 because the information is reasonably accessible. However, the M
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 21
View Ministry of Justice
9 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the investigation into the possible involvement of Robert Black in the disappearance of Genette Tate in 1978. Devon and Cornwall Police (“D&CP”) stated that it held information that was relevant to the request but that it was exempt from disclosure under sections 30(1) (investigations and proceedings) and section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that D&CP was entitled to apply section 30(1) to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Devon and Cornwall Police
9 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes of the oral evidence given to the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Board (DDRB) during the recent review of doctors’ pay and contracts which took place in 2015. The Office of Manpower Economics (OME), withheld the information under section 36(2) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OME is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(ii) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0144 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Office of Manpower Economics
9 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from London Borough of Waltham Forest (the ‘Council’) information relating to penalty charge notices (‘PCNs’) and details of a particular CCTV camera. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it failed to respond to the requests within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Waltham Forest Council
9 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a particular speed limit and closed lane on the M25. Highways England 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 Highways England correctly applied section 14(1) to it. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View National Highways
9 May 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a number of requests to the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) for information broadly relating to the serving of section 146 notices in accordance with the Law of Property Act 1925. The present notice concerns six of the requests. With regard to five of the requests (requests 1, 5 – 7 and 10), the Commissioner has decided that the Council either does not hold any information, or does not hold any further information in addition to the records that have already been provided. In relation to the remaining request (request 4(a)), the Commissioner has determined that the Council was not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) (appropriate costs limit) of FOIA but that it did breach section 16 (advice and assistance) by its initial handling of the request. In light of his findings, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken by the Council as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0130 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Southwark Council
5 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a multi-part request for information to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to individuals with responsibility for compliance with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to this request within the statutory timescale the MoJ breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As a substantive response has been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
5 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from the National Crime Agency (NCA) information about the numbers of construction sites subject to confiscation or freezing orders. While the NCA is not subject to FOIA, it is subject to the EIRs. The Commissioner decided however that the relevant information held by NCA is not environmental. The Commissioner does not require NCA to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View National Crime Agency
5 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Education (“DfE”) concerning applications under wave 10 of the Free School programme. The DfE withheld the information under section 22. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has incorrectly withheld the information under section 22.The Commissioner does not require the DfE to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation as it has published the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Department for Education
5 May 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of all the correspondence and communications between Northumbria Police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission regarding a rape investigation. Northumbria Police withheld the information citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria Police have applied section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA appropriately. However, the Commissioner considers that Northumbria Police has breached section 17(1) (refusal of a request). The Commissioner does not require Northumbria Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Northumbria Police
5 May 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to Thanet District Council (the Council) for information from its files regarding planning issues concerning a particular piece of land. The Council provided the complainant with some information but withheld the remainder on the basis of section 31 of FOIA. The Council subsequently accepted that this request should have been considered under the EIR and therefore sought to rely instead on the exception contained at regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council is entitled to rely on this exception. However, in handling this request it did breach the procedural requirements of the EIR contained at regulations 14(2) and 14(3) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days and failing to initially deal with the request under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 14(3)
View Thanet District Council
4 May 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for details of the despatches written by Lieutenant Colonel Anton Gash, the defence attaché of the British High Commission in Sri Lanka, to the FCO during the period January 2009 to May 2009. The FCO initially sought to withhold the requested information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (b); 27(2); (international relations); 31(1)(a) to (c) (law enforcement); and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the FCO provided the complainant with redacted versions of the despatches. The complainant disputed the FCO’s basis of making these redactions. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO has correctly relied on section 27(1)(a), but can only rely on section 40(2) as basis to withhold some of the material to which it has been applied and furthermore that section 31 is not engaged. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tri
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 31; FOI 40
3 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of advice given to Ministers within DCLG following a consultation exercise on ‘Planning Performance and Planning Contributions’. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCLG has correctly applied the exception for internal communications at Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to the requested information. He does not require DCLG to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
3 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of notes of a meeting held on 15 April 2005 to discuss complaints he had made against the Welsh Crown Green Bowling Association (‘WCGBA’). Sport Wales provided a copy of the notes of the meeting in question. However, the complainant subsequently confirmed that he was seeking access to the notes of a pre-meeting which took place an hour before the formal meeting on 15 April 2005. Sport Wales confirmed that it did not hold the notes of any pre-meeting. In its internal review, Sport Wales confirmed that it considered the request to be vexatious under section 14 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sport Wales is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. Therefore, he does not require Sport Wales to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
3 May 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about police powers under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act to detain mentally disordered persons found in public places. By the date of this notice the Home Office had not responded to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to the request, the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
3 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a boundary change to her property. HM Land Registry (the Land Registry) has set out that no information falling within the scope of the request is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Land Registry was correct to assert that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require Land Registry to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5
View HM Land Registry
3 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the seizure of illegal and counterfeit items at the Port of Tilbury in Essex. The Home Office confirmed it holds information with the scope of the request, but refused to provide it citing section 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement - the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b). No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
3 May 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to meetings held with the Governments of Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia or Egypt to discuss migration. The Home Office provided some information within the scope of the request but withheld the remainder citing sections 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means), 27(1) (international relations), 36(2)(b)(i) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the Home Office’s application of sections 27(1) and 40(2) and has concluded that the Home Office was entitled to apply those exemptions to the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0137 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40
View Home Office
28 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to the Chief Executive of Ashford Futures. Ashford Borough Council (the council) advised that it did not hold this information and at the internal review stage advised that this person had in fact resigned. The complainant considered the council held information on a dismissal, but during the Commissioner’s investigation, the council provided a copy of the individual’s resignation letter. On the production of this resignation letter, the Commissioner determined that the council would not hold information on a dismissal. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ashford Borough Council
28 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recorded information from Keighley Town Council which concerns MH-P Internet Limited’s provision of internet/website services. The information which the complainant seeks is subject to the Council’s application of sections 21 and 22 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Keighley Town Council has correctly applied sections 21 and 22 to the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0126 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 22
View Ilkley Town Council
28 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the evaluation of sites considered for the Liss Village Neighbourhood Plan. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response under the EIR as per paragraph 28 of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14
28 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to the ownership of certain traffic islands. Bridgnorth Town Council (the council) stated that it did not hold any information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any information within the scope of the request. The only information that was provided was actually held by another council and had already been obtained by the requestor from that council. As the Commissioner has determined no other information is held, and the complainant already holds a copy of the expired agreement, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
28 Apr 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (“the Council”) relating to a block of flats. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of requests 14, 15 and 17. However, the Commissioner has determined that the information sought in requests 6 and 7 is not personal data and therefore section 40 does not apply. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with the information sought in requests 6 and 7.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Barking and Dagenham Council
28 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Danvm Drainage Commissioners (“IDB”) for a copy of two draft reports. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IDB has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR to the reports sought in requests 2 and 3 and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner requires the IDB to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
28 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested full legal documentation referred to in a Planning Committee meeting on 8 November 2011. The Commissioner’s decision is that Newark and Sherwood District Council has failed to demonstrate that the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) where disclosure would have an adverse effect upon the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Newark and Sherwood District Council
28 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the number of payments made by the Home Office of more than £25,000 that were not included in the information published by the Home Office about such payments, and the amount of each of those payments. The Home Office refused this request on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 12(1) incorrectly and it is now required to issue a fresh response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Home Office
28 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an investigation report with regards to a code of conduct complaint. North Norfolk District Council (the council) refused the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considered the information to be third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse the request in this case. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0142 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View North Norfolk District Council
28 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to how a conclusion was reached that a defect on a pavement did not warrant intervention. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertfordshire County Council does not hold further information relevant to this request. He does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Hertfordshire County Council
28 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Communities and Local Government (“the DCLG”) which concerns the Government’s plans to extend the Right To Buy to tenants of Housing Associations. The DCLG confirmed that it holds information relevant to the complainant’s request, but withheld it in reliance on sections 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DCLG has appropriately applied sections 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) and therefore it is entitled to withhold the information which the complainant seeks. The Commissioner requires the DCLG to take no further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
27 Apr 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a murder case. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) disclosed some of the requested information, but withheld the remainder under the exemption provided by section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) was cited correctly in relation to some of the withheld content, but that the remainder of the withheld content was not exempt. The IPCC is now required to disclose the non-exempt content. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0133 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
27 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Home Office vehicles. The Home Office disclosed some of the requested information, but withheld the remainder and cited the exemption provided by section 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 31(1)(a) correctly, so it was not obliged to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
27 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested private board minutes in which the Trust’s PFI contract was discussed as well as legal advice received by the Trust from Bevan Brittan discussing the PFI contract. The Trust considered section 36(2)(c) provided a basis for withholding the minutes and section 42(1) applied to the legal advice, contained within a series of emails. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) is not engaged in relation to information in the minutes and, for the legal advice, section 42(1) is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information in the private board minutes which refers to the PFI contract, as identified by the Trust; and disclose the emails containing legal advice within the scope of the request with redactions for personal data where appropriate.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 42
View Wye Valley NHS Trust
26 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of two recordings made from her late mother’s telephone line on two specified dates. The Council refused the information in reliance on section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Torfaen County Borough Council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0131 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Torfaen County Borough Council
26 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainants requested a copy of legal advice relating to a proposed access route to a planned wind farm development. Natural Resources Wales withheld the information requested by virtue of regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation Natural Resources Wales acknowledged that some of the withheld information constituted the complainants’ own personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that some information was correctly withheld under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The remaining information is the complainants’ own personal data and is therefore exempt under regulation 5(3) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(3)
View Natural Resources Wales
26 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to dust monitoring data from a former gas works site. The Council refused to disclose the information citing regulation 12(5)(c) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council also sought to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f). The Commissioner ascertained that the requested information had already been disclosed to the complainant by another public authority, and at this point the Council agreed to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR in that it disclosed the requested information outside the statutory time for compliance. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Torbay Council
26 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS) in relation to a procurement exercise regarding the provision of a Non-Emergency Patient Transport Service. The NIAS has not to date provided a response to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NIAS has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the NIAS to provide a full response to the complainant’s request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Northern Ireland Ombudsman
26 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from St Patrick’s & St Brigid’s College (“the College”) in relation to suspension of pupils from the College during the academic years 2014/2015 and 2015 to date. The College has not to date provided a response to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the College provide a full response to the complainant’s request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
25 Apr 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) copies of the section 106 Heads of Terms and any viability information produced in connection with the proposals for the regeneration of the Aylesbury estate. The Council directed the complainant to where the Heads of Terms could be viewed and provided a financial viability note with some information redacted in accordance with the ‘confidentiality of commercial or industrial information’ (regulation 12(5)(e)) and ‘interests of the person who provided the information’ (regulation 12(5)(f)) exceptions to disclosure in the EIR. The complaint to the Commissioner has two parts. In part A, the Commissioner has been required to consider whether the Council was entitled to withhold this information. In part B, the Commissioner has been asked to establish whether the Council holds additional viability information that should have been identified in response to the request. The Commissioner has determined that (par
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 5
View Southwark Council
25 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for correspondence or communications exchanged with representatives of either Lambeth Palace or Westminster Abbey concerning the funeral of Her Majesty The Queen or the Coronation of the next Monarch. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but considered it to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime); 35(1)(a) (government policy); 37(1)(a) (communications with the Sovereign); 38(1)(b) (endangering the safety of an individual); 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
25 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the 1955 minutes concerning the disappearance of the late Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean in the file listed as FCO 158/228/1 Closed extracts. The National Archives (TNA) refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied sections 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The National Archives
25 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for details of the calculations relied on by the public authority to support the estimated cost to the Exchequer of maintaining current rules for tax relief on travel and subsistence expenses on home to work travel for temporary workers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information described as “the disputed information” in the body of this notice on the basis of the exemption at section 35(1)(a) FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
25 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested 13 March and 17 March 2003 Cabinet minutes. The Cabinet Office cited section 22 (information intended for future publication) as its basis for refusal and upheld this at internal review. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Cabinet Office introduced reliance on section 35 (ministerial communications) for that information in the minutes which did not cover the subject of Iraq. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 22(1) as its basis for withholding the 13 March and 17 March 2003 minutes where they relate to the subject of Iraq. The Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(b) as its basis for withholding the remainder of the requested information. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0127 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 35
View Cabinet Office