21 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about council tax liability hearings. By the date of this notice, the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to issue a response to the request set out in paragraph 5 under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
21 Apr 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details about fire officers who attended an address as a result of a 999 call. Following clarification, London Fire Brigade (“LFB”) refused to provide its officer’s details on the basis that to do so would breach section 40(2)(personal information) of the FOIA. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, LFB determined that it had no recorded information by which to identify the relevant officers and did not therefore hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no information is held. However, he does find procedural breaches regarding the handling of the request. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/0233/2017 (permission to appeal) refused. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0122 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View London Fire Brigade
21 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the documentation required by transgender people when applying for a UK passport. 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
20 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the university relating to staff in the Department of Physics from 1975 to date. To the date of this notice, the university has not responded. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the university to issue a full response under the FOIA to the complainant’s request of 27 January 2016.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The University of Manchester
20 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Liverpool tunnel tolls. Merseytravel refused the request, citing the exemption for prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs (36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that Merseytravel: was the appropriate public authority to handle the request, that it correctly handled the request under the FOIA and complied with section 1 of the FOIA; that it failed to demonstrate that the exemptions in section 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) were engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the requested information to the complainant, excluding the names and contact details of junior members of staff.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36
20 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested detailed financial information from Rainworth Parish Council (the parish council). The Commissioner’s decision is that while the parish council acknowledged the complainant’s request and provided some relevant information, it has not issued a response which fulfils its obligations under the terms of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the parish council to issue a fresh response to the complainant, with respect to the outstanding parts of the request, which does not rely on section 21 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 21
20 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a number of requests for information relating to an intended redevelopment of City College’s campus in Brighton. The college refused the requests partly on cost grounds under s12(1) FOIA and partly as vexatious under s14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that s12(1) applies to the whole of the information requested and so the college is not obliged to comply with the requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
20 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recorded information which relates to the lease of two offices to Conserve Africa Foundation, which are subject to a dispute and possible recovery action in respect of council tax. Where City of York Council holds recorded information which falls within the scope of the complainant’s request, the Commissioner has decided that the Council is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(d) of the FOIA to withhold it. Where the Council says that it does not hold recorded information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request, the Commissioner has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA, in advising the complainant of this position. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View York City Council
19 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a train accident that occurred at Selby on 28 February 2001. North Yorkshire Police (NYP) responded and said that determining whether this information was held would exceed the cost limit (section 12(2)) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NYP was aware without undertaking significant work that it held information within the scope of the request and so was incorrect to rely on section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has also found that NYP breached section 17(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires NYP to issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 12(2) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 17
View North Yorkshire Police
19 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Islington (“the Council”) relating to section 146 notices that have been served on leaseholders for the period 01 April 2013 – 31 March 2014. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld some of the requested information under section 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Islington Council
19 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a police investigation concerning a road traffic collision that occurred on 22 February 2010. The request was refused as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police correctly applied section 14(1) to this request and that there are no further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0118 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Kent Police
19 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Islington (“the Council”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided the complainant with all relevant information that is disclosable under the FOIA and that falls within the scope of her request. He has further determined that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) to some of the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Islington Council
18 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the contents of four named Home Office (HO) files on 13 August 2015. HO provided an initial holding reply, citing the section 24(1) FOIA exemption but, despite reminders from both the complainant and the Commissioner, has still not provided a full reply including a public interest balancing test. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that HO 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 HO respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
18 Apr 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to whistleblowing reports received by the Serious Fraud Office through its confidential service ‘SFO Confidential’ since its launch in November 2011. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Serious Fraud office has applied section 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime) of the FOIA appropriately. However, the Commissioner considers that the SFO has breached section 10(3) (time taken to consider the public interest) and section 17(1) (refusal of a request). The Commissioner does not require the Serious Fraud Office to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31
View Serious Fraud Office
18 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence relating a report commissioned by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) on evidence submitted by an action group opposed to the expansion of Lydd Airport. The request was initially dealt with under the FOIA and whist some information was disclosed other information was withheld under sections 40 – personal data, and section 42 – legal professional privilege. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation he advised the ONR that the request should have been handled under the EIR and the ONR subsequently applied the exceptions provided by regulation 13 – personal data and regulations 12(5)(b) – course of justice and 12(5)(d) – confidentiality of proceedings to the same information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ONR is entitled to rely on these exceptions to withhold the disputed information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 13
View Office for Nuclear Regulation
18 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) about the binding agreement with an airline following a delayed flight. The CAA refused to provide the requested information, relying on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure) in order to do so. In particular the CAA cited the statutory prohibition on disclosure created by section 237(2) of the Enterprise Act 2002.The Commissioner’s decision is that the CAA has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) and the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Civil Aviation Authority
18 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on software licences purchased by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The FCA provided information for parts of the request but considered that the discount on the normal list price for the licence agreement was exempt on the basis of section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA has correctly applied the provisions of section 43(2) and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. He requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Financial Conduct Authority
18 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details about the number of referrals made by Essex Police to the counter terrorism service “Prevent”. Essex Police would neither confirm nor deny holding information citing sections 24(1) (national security) and 31(1) (law enforcement). Essex Police also advised that disclosure could identify individuals although it did not cite the relevant exemption. During the Commissioner’s investigation Essex Police confirmed that it does hold information and wanted to rely on the sections already cited; it also added section 40(2)(personal information), which it later removed. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 24(1) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Essex Police
14 Apr 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested speed survey data from 2005. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the ‘Council’) denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision, on the balance of probabilities, is that the Council does not hold the requested information. However, as the Council issued its refusal notice more than 20 working days after receiving the request, it breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
14 Apr 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the Rural Payments Agency various information in connection with the number of eligible hectares of New Forest common land awarded to each applicant for the Single Payment Scheme years of 2013 and 2014. The Rural Payments Agency disclosed the information requested in parts 1 and 2 of the request for the year 2013 with personal data redacted but claimed not to hold the information requested in relation to part 3 of the request, the number and type of livestock by applying Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. With regard to the same information for 2014 the Rural Payments Agency applied Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR on the basis that it would be manifestly unreasonable to provide it in view of the significant cost and disproportionate diversion of resources involved. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Rural Payments Agency has correctly applied Regulation 13 of the EIR in respect of the personal data in the 2013 information at parts 1 and 2 of the requ
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 13
View Rural Payments Agency
13 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Danny Cohen’s trip to the USA. 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
13 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the transfer of lands and properties in 1974 to the council. The West Dorset District Council (WDDC) confirmed that they did not hold any further information. The complainant considered that more information must be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that WDDC does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require WDDC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Lindsey District Council
13 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held within Land Charges Registers for a number of properties. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wiltshire Council has breached regulation 5(1) by failing to make the information available on request and regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to make the requested information available within the statutory time for compliance. In addition Wiltshire Council has breached regulation 6(1) of the EIR by failing to comply with the complainant’s request for information to be made available in a particular format. The Commissioner requires the public authority to respond to the request in accordance with the EIR Regulations by providing copies of the requested information in accordance with the Commissioner’s guidance on charging for property search information or by issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 6(1)
View Wiltshire Council
13 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Cabinet Office information relating to Baron Janner of Braunstone. The Cabinet Office responded and confirmed it held relevant information, but that it was exempt under section 37(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). However, the Cabinet Office also stated it needed further time to consider the balance of the public interest. To date, the Cabinet Office has failed to provide the complainant with a substantive response. By failing to do so the Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(3) of the Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with substantive responses to his information request. If the Cabinet Office decides to withhold any information then the complainant should be provided with a refusal notice giving a full explanation as to why the information will not be disclosed, including details of any public interest test considerations.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Cabinet Office
13 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the selection of members of the Airports Commission. The DfT provided some information to the complainant but withheld some information under sections 35(1)(a), 36(2)(a)(i), 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii), 40(2) and 41 FOIA. It confirmed that it does not consider the information requested to be environmental, but in the alternative, if the Commissioner does consider the information to be environmental, it applied regulations 12(4)(d), 12(4)(e), 12(5)(d) 12(5)(f) and 13 EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT was correct to deal with the request under FOIA. He also considers that section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA was applied correctly to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Transport
12 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) relating to the final bill for electrical works and the final annual service charges bill for a specific property for the account year ending March 2014. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0104 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/3882/2016 (permission to appeal) refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Southwark Council
12 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Ealing various information concerning an application for a sexual entertainment venue licence. To date the London Borough of Ealing has not provided a response to the complainant under the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Ealing has breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to respond to the complainant’s request dated 30 October 2015 under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ealing Council
12 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked for information concerning a financial award made by the Big Lottery Fund (the “Fund”) to the Melness and Tongue Community Development Trust (“MTCDT”) in Sutherland. He initially requested invoices and claims forms regarding money received by MTCDT and its associated entities. These were provided to him but with personal data redacted (considered under case reference FS50610307). In addition, the complainant requested that the Fund should confirm to him whether the submitted invoices related to a director or trustee of MTCDT and/or its subsidiary, Melness and Tongue Community Energy Limited (“MTCE”) or any other related entity. This separate request for information has also been refused under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Fund is correct to apply section 40(2) of the FOIA to this request. He therefore requires no further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0105 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Big Lottery Fund
11 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about council tax liability hearings. By the date of this notice, the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the MOJ issue a response to the request set out in paragraph 5 under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
11 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various types of information, which was to include the meeting minutes in relation to business rate relief. North Norfolk District Council (the council) provided the information it held, but advised it did not hold the requested meeting minutes as none were taken. The complainant believed that the council must hold meeting minutes or something to that effect. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request other than what it has already provided. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View North Norfolk District Council
11 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the work of Rabbi Michael Binstock, the number of Jewish prisoners and the number of prisons where Rabbis / Jewish faith workers attend to the needs of Jewish prisoners. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) cited section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied section 12. He requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal EA/2016/0123 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Ministry of Justice
11 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to archaeological services. Lincolnshire County Council (the council) provided the information it held but the complainant believed the council had not provided him with everything it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided the complainant with all the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0124 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Lincolnshire County Council
11 Apr 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to plans for redevelopment of Stompond Lane Sports Ground. Elmbridge Borough Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Elmbridge Borough Council: Wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1); Failed to issue an EIR refusal notice in time and breached regulation 14; Correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14; EIR 5(1)
View Elmbridge Borough Council
11 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recorded information from Hampshire County Council. The complainant seeks the advice given by the Council’s Legal Services and Governors’ Services to North Baddesley Infant School. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire County Council has properly applied section 42 of the FOIA to certain pieces of information which have been withheld from the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter. The Commissioner will make a separate assessment under section 42 of the Data Protection Act 1998 in respect of whether the Council is likely to have complied with the subject access provisions of that Act.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Hampshire County Council
11 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recorded information from the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (“the Council”), which concerns the investments made by West Yorkshire Pension Fund (“WYPF”). The information which the complainant seeks has been withheld by the Council in reliance on section 43 of the FOIA, on the grounds that its disclosure would prejudice commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 43 to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
11 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants requested information relating to telephone conversations between investigators at the Legal Ombudsman and a named barrister or staff at his chambers. The Legal Ombudsman confirmed that it holds the information but refused to disclose it citing sections 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the Legal Ombudsman’s application of section 44. His decision is that the Legal Ombudsman was entitled to apply section 44(1)(a) to the withheld information by virtue of the Legal Services Act (LSA) 2007. He requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View The Legal Ombudsman
6 Apr 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the numbers of corporate self-reports of bribery or corruption and allegations of corruption from whistle-blowers and other sources, received by the Serious Fraud Office. She also requested the number of investigations currently carried out by the Serious Fraud Office into overseas bribery and corruption. The Serious Fraud Office would neither confirm nor deny holding some of the information by virtue of section 23(5) (security bodies) and applied sections 27(1)(a) (prejudice relations between the UK and any other State) and 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime) to the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Serious Fraud Office has applied all of the exemptions appropriately. However, he considers that the SFO has breached sections 17 (refusal of a request) and 10(3) (extension of the time taken to consider the public interest). The Commissioner does not require the Serious Fraud Office to take any steps as a result of this d
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 27; FOI 31
View Serious Fraud Office
6 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information, against a background of the ‘Nolan Principles ’, for details of officers responsible for handling Subject Access and FOIA Requests. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) did not respond within the statutory 20 working days prescribed by FOIA. The complainant requested that a decision notice be issued by the Commissioner recording the delay. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by issuing its response late, but as a substantive response has been provided to the complainant, he does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
5 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of specified digital audio media transcripts. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) dealt with his two requests for information as ‘business as usual’ correspondence but no formal response has been provided to either request under the terms of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the requests within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the MoJ provide a formal response, covering both requests, under the terms of the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
5 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to batteries available in prisons. The MoJ confirmed it held the requested information, but refused to provide some of it citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption as set out in section 43(2) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to disclose the withheld information as requested in parts (1) and (2) of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Ministry of Justice
4 Apr 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested training materials provided to educational establishments that concern preventing extremism. The Home Office refused to disclose this information under the exemptions provided by the following sections of the FOIA: 24(1) (national security), 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 24(1) correctly and so it was not obliged to disclose this information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Home Office
4 Apr 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the revocation of British citizenship. The Home Office failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA through its failure to respond to this request. He therefore requires the Home Office respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
31 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Department for Work and Pensions’ (‘DWP’) peer reviewing of cases where the claimant had or may have committed suicide. 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 provide the complainant with the requested information it holds.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Department for Work and Pensions
31 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Brighton i360. Brighton & Hove City Council withheld the information under the exemptions for information provided in confidence (section 41) and prejudice to commercial interests (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Brighton & Hove City Council has failed to demonstrate that the exemptions in section 41 and section 43(2) are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0119 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
View Brighton and Hove City Council
31 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to communications between Somerset County Council (the Council) and individuals at utility companies. The Council refused this request under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR as it considered disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice. The Council’s reasoning for this is that it would affect the result of a pending inquiry. Following the outcome of the inquiry the complainant resubmitted her request. The Council acknowledged the request but has not provided a response to the complainant which meets with its obligations under the EIR. In doing so it has breached regulations 5(1) & 5(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a substantive response to the complainant’s request of 27 January 2016.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Somerset Council
31 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested records and communications held in paper and electronic form of the meeting(s) held between Alastair Campbell and senior civil servants over revising the structure of the Iraq WMD dossier. The Cabinet Office refused to provide the information it held within the scope of the request, citing section 21 (accessible to the requester) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review and asserted that it held no further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 21 in respect of the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has concluded that on the balance of probabilities it holds no further information within the scope of the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Cabinet Office
31 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a memorandum that was leaked to the media. The Scotland Office refused the request in reliance on the exemptions at sections 27(1)(a), 27(2), 38(1)(a) and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Scotland Office was entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 27(1)(a) and 40(2) of the FOIA in respect of the withheld information. However the Commissioner also finds that some of the information is not exempt and ought to be disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose to the complainant the information relevant to the complainant’s request as indicated in the Scotland Office letter to the Commissioner dated 25 February 2016. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0146 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40
View Scotland Office
31 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recorded information concerning investments made by Cheshire Pension Fund in Private Equity Funds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 41 of the FOIA on the grounds that the information required by the complainant is confidential. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further actions in respect of this request
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
31 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested training materials used for Immigration Presenting Officers. The Home Office refused this request and cited the exemption provided by section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 36(2)(c) correctly and so it was not obliged to disclose this information. However, the Commissioner also finds that the Home Office breached section 16(1) through failing to seek clarification of the scope of the request from the complainant when it was necessary to do so, and section 17(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. These breaches do not necessitate remedial action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 17; FOI 36
View Home Office
31 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to advice obtained by the Department of Finance and Personnel. The Department provided some information but withheld the remainder under sections 21 and 42 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Department identified further information and disclosed some of the withheld information. With regard to the remaining withheld information the Commissioner finds that section 21 is not engaged. The Commissioner finds that section 42 is engaged in respect of some information but not engaged in respect of some information. The Commissioner also finds that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing some, but not all, of the information exempt under section 42. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has incorrectly withheld some information under sections 21 and 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the information listed in the
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 42
View Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland